That said, where Chevron deliberately moved on FNC grounds, it is difficult to reconcile that Chevron can now resile from this decision by attempting to impeach the Ecuador judgment on grounds of jurisdictional fraud. While it may appear unfair, res judicata and cause of action estoppel sometimes operate unfairly, but finality is a cornerstone of the foreign judgment enforcement regime. Had Chevron not sought out Ecuador as a convenient forum, then it would have left open the arguments for intrinsic fraud.

Trying to attack the merits circuitously is antithetical to the underlying conflict of laws principles at play here. If there are other grounds to impeach the judgments, such as lack of due process, and public policy grounds, then it will necessarily be an indictment on the entire Ecuadorean political and judicial system; such an indictment most judges and courts are loath to declare.

Since when does a BIT/investor-state tribunal have jurisdiction to direct a State to impose a stay or suspension of execution of a judgment, rendered by the State’s court involving private parties?

Certainly a creative tactic of employing public international law procedure to affect a private international law dispute. I remain dubious, however, that the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the underlying Lago Agrio judgment.