John, I find your comment somewhat confusing for a few reasons. First, nothing in the post or my earlier comment discusses cassation versus appeal. Second, I think that Álvarez may be a law professor, but I am pretty critical of his declaration. Third, I think it’s not really possible to characterize this post as pro-Chevron. Is it possible you meant to respond to a different post, perhaps Doug Cassel’s post, which is highly critical of the Ecuadoran courts?

I live and work in Kazakhstan, an extremely corrupt country, including a non-independent judiciary, according to external observers such as Transparency International. However, I could never state that the entire judiciary is corrupt or that decisions are entirely controlled by the Executive or other authority. It is too difficult to get the evidence. In your review, you refer to some professor, implying that he is above reproach. Without knowing more, this refernce is a form of a fallacy to “authority”, perhaps appropriate or not.

You may be right. However, I believe it is difficult to support all your statements, given their breadth and the challenges posed by making statements about a foreign legal system, though you may have reason to think the process is politically driven.

If I may ask, why are you so pro-Chevron?

First, it may be that the courts of Ecuador could be deemed systematically inadequate under statutes such as the UFCMJRA. But in light of the forum non conveniens issue in the case, I think it’s very important to know what came before the recent upheavals. A really independent court system? Courts tilted the other way politically? A long period of stability or many swings back and forth?

Second, comity counsels caution in evaluating foreign courts, particularly against evidence submitted by the new government’s enemies, even if they appear (as in this case) to have real credentials.