I will take a look at the links if I get a chance later today. If you want to email me separately with corrected links, that would be helpful.

No worries!

Maybe this is simplistic: isn’t the answer that Ecuador should have made the human rights arguments to the arbitral tribunal? Maybe the tribunal got the issue wrong, but that’s the risk you take when you agree to arbitrate. It’s not as though there are two competing orders out there, one compelling Ecuador to suspend the judgment and one compelling Ecuador not to suspend the judgment. There is only one order out there, so it seems to me that Ecuador’s obligation is clear. I get the point that due to Ecuador’s internal law Ecuador says it could not comply with the order. That’s precisely the situation the US found itself in in the Medellin case. But don’t you agree that impossibility that stems from domestic law problems (federalism in Medellin, separation of powers in this case) doesn’t relieve a state of its international law obligations? Again, maybe this seems to simplistic, but it seems like a pretty simple issue to me.

Ok—the “scroll down” explanation didn’t occur to me, so my apologies. It is indeed an old debate at this point, although it’s frustrating that I don’t believe I’ve seen a substantive response anywhere from Chevron or its lobbyists and professors, or from the international arbitration community, as to what the Ecuadorian court ought to have done in the face of the conflict between human rights and investment law obligations that it identified. The suggestions are simply (i) pretend a conflict doesn’t exist, pure head-in-the-sand; or (ii) just submit to the demands. Neither takes the issue seriously.

That’s a fair point, Aaron. The truth is I didn’t realize you could “scroll down” on the docket page I was looking at and didn’t see the other comments! I have, however, covered the Ecuadoran perspective on this issue previously. I wish you would not attribute nefarious motives to me, but I suppose that’s up to you!