<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Case of the Day: Republic of Ecuador v. Chevron Corp.	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/03/18/case-of-the-day-republic-of-ecuador-v-chevron-corp/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/03/18/case-of-the-day-republic-of-ecuador-v-chevron-corp/</link>
	<description>The Blog of International Judicial Assistance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2024 21:23:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Case of the Day: Republic of Argentina v. BG Group plc &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/03/18/case-of-the-day-republic-of-ecuador-v-chevron-corp/#comment-24096</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: Republic of Argentina v. BG Group plc &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2024 02:04:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=610#comment-24096</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] parties clearly and unmistakably intend for the tribunal to decide questions of arbitrability. See Republic of Ecuador v. Chevron Corp., 638 F.3d 384 (2d Cir. 2011). But the panel noted that the BIT&#8217;s incorporation of the UNCITRALRules is triggered only [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] parties clearly and unmistakably intend for the tribunal to decide questions of arbitrability. See Republic of Ecuador v. Chevron Corp., 638 F.3d 384 (2d Cir. 2011). But the panel noted that the BIT&#8217;s incorporation of the UNCITRALRules is triggered only [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Case of the Day: Thai-Lao Lignite v. Laos &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/03/18/case-of-the-day-republic-of-ecuador-v-chevron-corp/#comment-23325</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: Thai-Lao Lignite v. Laos &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Dec 2024 14:19:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=610#comment-23325</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] Second Circuit has now summarily affirmed. Citing Republic of Ecuador v. Chevron Corp., 638 F.3d 384 (2d Cir. 2011), it held that Laos was bound by its agreement to arbitrate under the UNCITRAL rules, which in turn [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Second Circuit has now summarily affirmed. Citing Republic of Ecuador v. Chevron Corp., 638 F.3d 384 (2d Cir. 2011), it held that Laos was bound by its agreement to arbitrate under the UNCITRAL rules, which in turn [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Case of the Day: Hubei Gezhouba Sanlian Indus. Co. v. Robinson Helicopter Co. &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/03/18/case-of-the-day-republic-of-ecuador-v-chevron-corp/#comment-100</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: Hubei Gezhouba Sanlian Indus. Co. v. Robinson Helicopter Co. &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2019 18:42:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=610#comment-100</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] it&#8217;s worth comparing the issue of estoppel here with the Second Circuit&#8217;s recent Chevron decision. There, of course, the issue was discussed much more thoroughly (the Ninth Circuit&#8217;s decision [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] it&#8217;s worth comparing the issue of estoppel here with the Second Circuit&#8217;s recent Chevron decision. There, of course, the issue was discussed much more thoroughly (the Ninth Circuit&#8217;s decision [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Case of the Day: Republic of Argentina v. BG Group plc &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/03/18/case-of-the-day-republic-of-ecuador-v-chevron-corp/#comment-99</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: Republic of Argentina v. BG Group plc &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:35:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=610#comment-99</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] parties clearly and unmistakably intend for the tribunal to decide questions of arbitrability. See Republic of Ecuador v. Chevron Corp., 638 F.3d 384 (2d Cir. 2011). But the panel noted that the BIT&#8217;s incorporation of the UNCITRALRules is triggered only [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] parties clearly and unmistakably intend for the tribunal to decide questions of arbitrability. See Republic of Ecuador v. Chevron Corp., 638 F.3d 384 (2d Cir. 2011). But the panel noted that the BIT&#8217;s incorporation of the UNCITRALRules is triggered only [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Case of the Day: Hubei Gezhouba Sanlian Indus. Co. v. Robinson Helicopter Co. &#171; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/03/18/case-of-the-day-republic-of-ecuador-v-chevron-corp/#comment-98</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: Hubei Gezhouba Sanlian Indus. Co. v. Robinson Helicopter Co. &#171; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2011 10:32:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=610#comment-98</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] it&#8217;s worth comparing the issue of estoppel here with the Second Circuit&#8217;s recent Chevron decision. There, of course, the issue was discussed much more thoroughly (the Ninth Circuit&#8217;s decision [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] it&#8217;s worth comparing the issue of estoppel here with the Second Circuit&#8217;s recent Chevron decision. There, of course, the issue was discussed much more thoroughly (the Ninth Circuit&#8217;s decision [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
