Navigating Global Disputes: Sudhanshu Roy on Law, Geopolitics, and Public Interest

Sudhanshu Roy is a Senior Associate at Foley Hoag in Washington, DC, where he specialises in international litigation and arbitration. His practice centers on representing sovereign States, State-owned entities, and private companies in complex, high-stakes disputes, including investor-State and international commercial arbitrations under frameworks such as International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), as well as arbitration-related litigation before US courts. He was recognised by Legal 500 as a “Leading Associate” in 2025 and as a “Rising Star” in Dispute Resolution: International Arbitration for three consecutive years from 2022 to 2024 and a “Key Lawyer” in 2021. He is a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and the Malaysian Institute of Arbitrators.

Prior to joining Foley Hoag, he served as a Legal Advisor with the International Investment Division of the Department of Economic Affairs, Government of India, where he contributed to drafting the revised Indian Model Bilateral Investment Treaty and negotiating international investment agreements. Earlier in his career, he worked as an Associate at Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A Shroff & Co. in New Delhi, focusing on international investment policy and World Trade Organisation (WTO) disputes for the Government of India.

He holds an LLM in International Legal Studies from New York University School of Law, which he attended as an Inlaks and Arthur T. Vanderbilt Scholar, a Diploma in International Law and Diplomacy from the Indian Academy of International Law and Diplomacy, and a law degree from Hidayatullah National Law University in India. He is admitted to the Bar in the District of Columbia, New York and New Delhi, and is fluent in Hindi and Bengali, in addition to English.

His career has included representing sovereign clients in significant cases, such as Thomas Gosling v. Republic of Mauritius³, Louis Dreyfus Armateurs SAS v. Republic of India⁴ and Ncell (P) Ltd. v. Nepal⁵ and Raiffeisen Bank v. Republic of Croatia⁶. Beyond his practice, he is deeply committed to pro bono work, advising sovereign States on investor-State dispute settlement reform and supporting organisations like International Bar Association, Human Rights First, Human Rights Foundation and Médecins Sans Frontières. He is passionate about advancing the field of international arbitration through his work, speaking engagements, and involvement in professional organisations, and considers it a privilege to contribute to this dynamic area of law.

1. Could you please introduce yourself to our readers?

My name is Sudhanshu Roy, and I am a first-generation lawyer qualified to practice in both India and the United States (New York and Washington DC). I began my legal career at Amarchand & Mangaldas (as it was then known) where I worked in the firm’s international public policy and Government affairs practice. Even at that early stage, I was drawn to public international law and dispute resolution.

While at Amarchand, I had the opportunity to work closely with the Ministry of Finance, Government of India on a comprehensive review of the country’s domestic and international policy framework related to foreign investments. That experience led me to represent the Government of India in a range of domestic and international legal matters, including investment arbitrations disputes involving foreign investors and the Government. For the past decade, I have been based in the United States, practising international arbitration at Foley Hoag LLP. I represent sovereign States and private entities in arbitrations administered under a range of rules, including ICC, SIAC, London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), ICSID and UNCITRAL, as well as in commercial litigation before US courts. My practice focuses on complex, high-stakes disputes that often sit at the intersection of international and domestic law, public policy and commercial interests.

2. Your educational journey spans prestigious institutions, from Hidayatullah National Law University in India to New York University School of Law, where you earned an LLM with the Arthur T. Vanderbilt and J.N. Tata Endowment Scholarships. How did these academic experiences shape your perspective and prepare you for a career in international arbitration?

My legal education has been of immense importance, even though I did not enter law school with the clear intention of pursuing a career in international arbitration. In fact, I was not even aware at the time that arbitration was a separate and growing area of legal practice. What drew me to law in the first place was a deep interest in how legal systems interact with politics and history. This naturally led me to constitutional law, which defines the foundational relationship between the State and the individual.

It was only during my later years in law school that I was introduced to public international law and its various branches, including international trade and investment law. At the time (2008-2009) trade and investment agreements were the subject of considerable policy debate, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. This exposure led me to discover the field of investor-State dispute settlement. From there, my interest expanded into the broader domain of international arbitration, including commercial disputes.

My LLM at New York University (NYU) also proved to be influential as it gave me the opportunity to study under leading scholars and practitioners in a rigorous academic setting. I received the Arthur T. Vanderbilt and Inlaks Scholarships to pursue the LLM program, which reaffirmed my academic commitment and gave me more confidence to pursue an international career.

3. The field of international arbitration is known for its complexity and high stakes. What personal motivations or experiences drove you to pursue this challenging career path, and how have they influenced your approach to resolving disputes for sovereign States and private clients?

Indeed, international disputes of the nature I am involved in are often complex as private companies and States do not typically resort to formal dispute resolution unless the financial and technical stakes are significant. Many such disputes are settled before reaching arbitration, as parties are understandably cautious about the time, legal costs and reputational risks involved.

What has sustained my interest and deepened my engagement with this field is the intellectual challenge of mastering both the legal and factual dimensions of each case. The most important skill I have learnt is to go into each matter with an open mind and learn the unique aspects of each case. As law students, we do not often realise the vastly important role the appreciation of facts and evidence plays in each case. On the other hand, when you practice, you realise that legal arguments must be grounded in a detailed and nuanced understanding of the factual narrative. The skill of uncovering and interpreting that narrative is one that only develops with experience.

What also keeps highly motivated is the public significance of many of the cases I handle. Just as one, I served as counsel for the Republic of Mauritius in a dispute that helped preserve the Le Morne Peninsula, a site of profound natural beauty and cultural importance, reputed to be the location of a slave rebellion in the 19th century. It has been listed as a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) World Heritage Site since 2008. Contributing to real-world outcomes such as these feels immensely rewarding. Moreover, as I said, each case presents a new challenge, a new set of facts, and often, a new geopolitical or regulatory context. These factors keep me on my toes and excited for each new opportunity.

4. With experience in both investor-State and international commercial arbitrations, how do you distinguish between the strategic approaches required for each, and what has been your most rewarding case in either domain?

International commercial disputes arise under a contract, whereas investor-State cases arise under international treaties signed by States. As a result, the substantive law in commercial arbitrations is often a domestic law specified in the contract (e.g. Indian law or Singapore law). In investment treaty cases, international law and treaty standards apply. Procedurally, there is an overlap. Both systems often employ similar arbitration rules (such as the UNCITRAL or ICC Rules) and rely on comparable tools when it comes to document production, witness and expert evidence and interim relief.

The strategic considerations can broadly differ. In investor-State cases, one of the parties are the sovereign State and the underlying issues often concern the public interest. Accordingly, advocacy must be tailored around the State’s right to regulate and public policy. These cases can also be highly political and closely watched domestically. For example, I successfully represented the Government of Nepal in a widely publicised treaty dispute brought by Axiata, a Malaysian telecom company, which sought to challenge a decision of the Nepal Supreme Court⁷ imposing capital gains tax on an offshore transfer of a Nepali telecom asset. Any adverse award would have had the unprecedented effect of overturning Nepal’s highest court, which made the public stakes of the case exceptionally high.

In commercial arbitration, by contrast, the stakes are driven by commercial objectives. In my experience, tactics in such cases tend to be more aggressive and geared towards achieving efficient, favourable outcomes. Investor-State cases, require a more measured and diplomatic approach.

5. Your work on cases like Louis Dreyfus Armateurs SAS case⁸, where India secured a $7.2 million cost award, showcases your expertise. What do you consider the most critical elements for achieving a favourable outcome in such complex arbitrations?

The three most important factors are preparation, teamwork and effective written and oral advocacy. International arbitration disputes can be complex, often involving thousands of documents and multiple stakeholders. As I have stated, it is essential to build a deep command of the facts and the surrounding commercial and regulatory context. Large arbitrations also require seamless coordination between not just the lawyers, but also the client, experts, witnesses and, in the case of States, government officials. It is important for each stakeholder to be on the same page. Finally, advocacy must be legally sound and strategically presented: weaving law, fact, and policy into a coherent case that enables the Tribunal to find in your client’s favour. In Louis Dreyfus Armateurs SAS case⁹, for example, our success rested on a jurisdictional argument demonstrating that the India-France Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT)¹⁰ did not protect an investment unless the foreign investor held at least a 51% share in the Indian company. Through multiple rounds of written pleadings and oral hearings, we convinced the Tribunal to rule in India’s favour.

6. Being named a “Rising Star” by Legal 500 is a testament to your impact in international arbitration. How have such accolades shaped your career, and what qualities do you believe have distinguished you in this competitive field?

It is both humbling and rewarding to be recognised by peers and the industry, though I believe it is ultimately for others to judge whether one deserves such accolades. These recognitions have certainly helped raise my profile within the international arbitration community and among clients. I also view them as a responsibility as they motivate me to continue delivering successful outcomes, particularly for government clients facing issues of public interest. I strive to bring the same commitment and discipline to every case, recognising that credibility, preparation, and integrity are critical to personal and professional success.

7. As a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, how do you view the role of professional bodies in fostering excellence and innovation in arbitration, especially for the next generation of practitioners?

I achieved fellow status with the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) in January 2025 after more than 15 years in practice. CIArb is a globally respected institution that plays a crucial role in setting standards of ethics, technical competence, and best practice in international arbitration. Although my involvement with CIArb has been relatively recent, it has already enabled me to build meaningful connections across the arbitration community. For example, I recently became involved with the organisation of both the New York Arbitration Week and Washington Arbitration through my colleagues at CIArb. I would strongly encourage young practitioners to engage with CIArb’s work and make use of its excellent continuing legal education programmes, particularly those looking to build a career in international commercial arbitration.

8. Your experience extends to arbitration-related litigation before US courts, such as the successful dismissal in Simplot India LLC v. Himalaya Food International Ltd. How does the interplay between national courts and arbitration proceedings influence your approach to dispute resolution?

National courts play a vital supervisory role over arbitration proceedings, ranging from enforcement and set aside applications to interim measures and arbitrator appointments. Even where an arbitration is seated outside the United States, US courts routinely become involved to compel arbitration, enforce subpoenas, or obtain third-party discovery. As practitioners, it is therefore essential to be familiar with the domestic laws that impact international arbitration, particularly the Federal Arbitration Act¹¹, Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 1976¹² (relevant when States or State-owned entities are involved), US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure¹³ and public policy exceptions and doctrines under US law (e.g. due process). In Simplot India LLC v. Himalaya Food International Ltd.¹⁴, for example, we successfully secured the dismissal of a US court action seeking to enforce a SIAC award on the ground that the New Jersey Federal Court lacked personal jurisdiction over Himalaya.

9. Your pro bono efforts include advising sovereign States on investor-State dispute settlement reform at UNCITRAL Working Group III. What reforms do you see as most urgent, and how do you envision the future of this mechanism?

Reform of the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) system has been a topic of discussion for over a decade. So far, most changes have been piecemeal, driven by individual States revising their models BITs or renegotiating agreements. UNCITRAL Working Group III seeks to centralise and coordinate this reform process.

In my view, three areas of reform are critical. First, the perception that outcomes in an investment arbitration dispute depend on who sits on the Tribunal must be addressed. A neutral roster of qualified arbitrators, appointed under a robust code of ethics and strong conflict-of-interest rules, would go a long way toward enhancing confidence in the system. Second, enhancing consistency and predictability in treaty interpretation is key. States are increasingly uncomfortable with tribunals reaching divergent conclusions under similarly-worded treaty provisions, which undermines the very purpose of entering into bilateral and multilateral trade and investment agreements. Third, efficiency must be improved. Investment arbitration is increasingly criticised for taking as long, and costing as much, as domestic litigation. If arbitration is to retain its relevance, cases must be resolved and awards rendered in a timelier fashion.

I believe that with these reforms, ISDS can strengthen its legitimacy, improve accessibility, and better balance the rights and expectations of both investors and States.

10. You have spoken at prestigious events, such as the Global Energy Arbitration Conference and India alternative dispute resolution (ADR) Week, on topics like investment treaty disputes. What emerging trends in international arbitration do you find most compelling for practitioners and scholars today?

In my view, international arbitration is becoming increasingly influenced by geopolitics and shifting global policy priorities, particularly regional conflicts and climate action. The investor-State disputes arising out of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, as well as the Armenia-Azerbaijan situation, illustrate how geopolitical developments are now directly shaping arbitration dockets.

Climate change and the transition to clean energy are another major driver. We are seeing a growing number of treaty claims, especially in Europe, where energy companies are challenging State measures to phase out coal-fired power plants or restrict coal mining. Both the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, for example, have recently been sued over such policies. In Asia, the trend is toward construction and infrastructure disputes, reflecting rapid urbanisation and development. At the same time, regulatory disputes remain common for countries like India, particularly in sectors such as oil and gas, telecoms, shipping and mining.

11. With a practice spanning diverse jurisdictions — from Bangladesh to Croatia to Ukraine — how do you adapt to the varying legal cultures and traditions you encounter, and what has been your most memorable cross-jurisdictional challenge?

It is important to be curious and respectful when your legal practice spans diverse jurisdictions. There is always something new to learn as each legal system has its own legal rules and procedural norms. I make it a point in each case to understand not just the legal and regulatory aspects of a case, but also the cultural traditions of each country. I make a conscious effort to also engage with client representatives, witnesses, local counsel, and other stakeholders to fully appreciate the broader political and cultural context in which the dispute unfolds. I have been fortunate to work on many memorable cases, but one that stands out is my representation of Nepal in its USD 500 million ICSID arbitration against Axiata. The case had enormous political, legal and cultural implications for Nepal, and it was deeply satisfying to help secure a decisive victory for the country in such a highly publicised dispute.

12. Reflecting on your journey, from your early career in New Delhi to your current role at Foley Hoag, what lessons have been most transformative for you, and what advice would you offer aspiring lawyers aiming to excel in international arbitration?

The three qualities I emphasise most for aspiring lawyers are intellectual curiosity, adaptability and strong communication skills. This is a demanding area of practice as the hours can be long and the pressures intense, so it is important to enjoy the work. Personally, I am genuinely fascinated every time I dive into the complex legal, factual, and policy issues that each case presents. I feel honoured each time I rise to deliver an argument or cross-examine a witness and deeply satisfied when we secure a positive result for our clients.

Adaptability and patience are also essential. Transitioning from domestic practice in New Delhi to international arbitration in New York was not easy, but with determination, and a focus on developing strong advocacy skills, it is certainly possible to build a rewarding career in this field. Finally, strong communication skills (both written and oral) are fundamental. You must be able to distil complex legal and factual issues in a simple and persuasive manner. Listening is arguably as important as speaking, whether with clients, witnesses, tribunal members, or opposing counsel, so that you come across as naturally respectful and your message resonates with audiences across diverse backgrounds.