Yuri Parkhomenko

Representative Experience

Inter-State litigation and arbitration before the International Court of Justice, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and other international tribunals:

• Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Counsel to The Gambia in the ICJ case against Myanmar to hold it responsible for committing genocide of the Rohingya.  Secured an historic unanimous provisional measures order against Myanmar to protect the Rohingya from genocide.
• Legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965. Counsel to Mauritius before the ICJ in case resulting in the advisory opinion, which determined by a vote of 13-1 that the United Kingdom unlawfully detached the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius during its decolonization and must end its unlawful administration of the Chagos Archipelago “as rapidly as possible.”
• Philippines v. China. Counsel to the Philippines in arbitration under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which resulted in the unanimous award that: (i) held unlawful China’s claim of historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within the ‘nine-dash line’ in the South China Sea; (ii) determined the legal status of maritime features in the disputed area; and (iii) found China to have breached its international obligations related inter alia to the protection of environment, safety of navigation, and non-aggravation of dispute.
• Nicaragua v. Colombia. Counsel to Nicaragua in the ICJ case resulting in the resolution of a sovereignty dispute over islands in the Western Caribbean and the delimitation of a maritime boundary in the Caribbean Sea. 
• Nicaragua v. Colombia. Counsel to Nicaragua in the ICJ case concerning violations of Nicaragua’s sovereign rights in the Nicaraguan maritime zones in the Caribbean Sea.
• Mauritius/the Maldives. Counsel to Mauritius in case brought under a special agreement before the ITLOS Special Chamber to delimit a boundary in the maritime area between the Chagos Archipelago (Mauritius) and the Maldives.
• Georgia v. Russia. Counsel to Georgia in the ICJ case brought under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination to hold Russia responsible for ethnic cleansing of Georgians from the areas occupied by Russian following the armed conflict of August 2008. 
• Mauritius v. the United Kingdom. Counsel to Mauritius in arbitration under Annex VII of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which resulted in the award finding that the UK, by unilaterally declaring a specific maritime zone around the Chagos Archipelago, breached its international obligations owed to Mauritius.
• Bangladesh v. Myanmar. Counsel to Bangladesh in the ITLOS case delimiting the territorial sea, Exclusive Economic Zone, and continental shelf (within and beyond 200 nautical miles) in the Bay of Bengal.
• Bangladesh v. India. Counsel to Bangladesh in arbitration Annex VII of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which delimited the territorial sea, Exclusive Economic Zone, and continental shelf (within and beyond 200 nautical miles) in the Bay of Bengal.
• Nicaragua v. Colombia. Counsel to Nicaragua in the ICJ case concerning the delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in the Caribbean Sea.
• Ecuador v. Colombia. Counsel to Ecuador in the ICJ case concerning Colombia's aerial spraying of toxic herbicides in close proximity to the Ecuadorian border, causing serious harm to human health, livestock, crops and the environment in Ecuador.
• Ecuador v. the United States of America. Counsel to Ecuador in State-to-State arbitration under the Ecuador-US bilateral investment treaty concerning the interpretation of the “effective means” clause in the BIT. 
• Croatia v. Slovenia. Counsel to Croatia in arbitration delimiting land and maritime boundaries.
• Nicaragua v. Costa Rica. Counsel to Nicaragua in the ICJ case concerning the delimitation of the maritime boundaries in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean.
• Ghana/Cote d’Ivoire. Counsel to Ghana in case  brought under a special agreement before the ITLOS Special Chamber to delimit a maritime boundary in the Gulf of Guinea.
• Nicaragua v. Costa Rica. Counsel to Nicaragua in the ICJ case concerning pollution of the San Juan River resulting from Costa Rica’s construction, industrial and agricultural activities.
• Costa Rica v. Nicaragua. Counsel to Nicaragua in the ICJ case concerning environmental harm resulting from the dredging of the San Juan River and restoration of channels.
• Somalia v. Kenya. Counsel to Somalia in the ICJ case concerning delimitation of the maritime boundary in the Indian Ocean.
• DRC v. Uganda. Counsel to Uganda in the ICJ case concerning the DRC’s war reparation claims for USD 14.5 billion. 

Investor-State Dispute Settlement

• Philip Morris v. Uruguay (ICSID). Counsel to Uruguay in case resulting in the dismissal of tobacco companies claims challenging Uruguay's regulation of cigarette packaging and health warnings.
• Ping An Life Insurance Company of China v. Belgium (ICSID). Counsel to Belgium in case involving claims of USD 1 billion, which  brought by Chinese companies challenged Belgium’s financial and banking regulations adopted to address an economic crisis. All claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• Gosling v. Mauritius (ICSID). Counsel to Mauritius in case resulting in the dismissal of claims against the State’s regulations barring the development of a luxury real estate complex in the Le Morne area inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
• Ritika Mehta, Vinita Agarwal, and Prenay Agarwal v. the Oriental Republic of Uruguay (UNCITRAL arbitration before the PCA). Counsel to Uruguay in arbitration concerning a $4 billion claim by an iron ore mining company. All claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• Hydro v. Albania (ICSID). Counsel to Albania in proceedings seeking to annul an award.
• European American Investment Bank AG (Austria) v. Slovakia. Counsel to Slovakia in an UNCITRAL arbitration concerning claims arising from modifications in health insurance sector, securing an award in Slovakia’s favor.
• City State et al. v. Ukraine (ICSID). Counsel to Ukraine in case brought by Dutch investors concerning a dispute arising from measures in the Ukrainian banking and finance sector. 
• Gold Reserve v. Venezuela (ICSID Additional Facility). Counsel to Venezuela in arbitration concerning a gold concession and environmental rights.
• Highbury v. Venezuela. Counsel to Venezuela in case concerning gold and diamond concessions, securing an award in Venezuela’s favor. 
• Vannessa v. Venezuela (ICSID Additional Facility). Counsel to Venezuela in arbitration involving claims for USD 1 billion brought by a Canadian gold mining company following the cancellation of a gold mining contract. All claims were dismissed on the merits.