CHEVRON CASE:
Ecuador’s defense on the claimants abuse of process in international investment arbitration PROLOGUE
CHAPTER I HISTORICAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND
CHAPTER II THE BEGINNING OF THE CHEVRON III CASE
CHAPTER III THE DISCUSSION OF THE TRIBUNAL’S JURISDICTION
Texaco also declared to the court in the Aguinda case that Ecuadorian law allowed the claimants to seek the same types of reparations in Ecuador that they were seeking in the New York court for environmental clean up efforts.
CHAPTER IV TRACK 1: SCOPE OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS
CHAPTER V TRACK 2: DENIAL OF JUSTICE AND ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE
CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS
constitute a completely adequate forum for these plaintiffs to fairly resolve their claims. I believe the Ecuadorian judicial system could resolve the plaintiffs’ claims in an adequate, efficient and impartial manner… The civil proceedings used in Ecuadorian courts are essentially those that were used in other civil law jurisdictions, such as Spain, France, Germany and Japan. Although they are different from those used in common law jurisdictions such as the United States of America, they do allow for an effective solution of the civil suits.”9
In these proceedings, Texaco repeatedly invoked the competence, independence and impartiality of the Ecuadorian judicial system. To support this statement, it submitted sworn affidavits by Ecuadorian legal experts who held that the Ecuadorian courts were an adequate forum to hear the claim and that Ecuadorian citizens and public officers trusted the judicial system. Hence, one of these experts stated, under penalty of perjury:
Texaco also declared before the Court, in the Aguinda Litigation, that Ecuadorian law allowed the plaintiffs to request the same type of compensation in Ecuador to remedy the environment as requested in New York.
“I have reviewed the claims in the Maria Aguinda, et al. case against Texaco Inc. In my opinion, based on my knowledge and experience, the Ecuadorian courts
In 1996, the District Court approved Texaco’s request and rejected the case on forum non conveniens grounds. Nonetheless, in 1998, the Second Judicial District reversed this dismissal and remanded the
9. Sworn Declaration of Dr. Alejandro Ponce Martínez, 13 December 1993. Emphasis is this institution´s opinion.
BACK TO CONTENT
30