Reuters is reporting that Ecuador has paid Chevron the $96 million awarded in a treaty arbitration ($112 million with interest). I’ve written several posts about this award and its aftermath. You may want to review my post on the DC Circuit’s decision affirming confirmation of the award and my post on the Hoge Raad’s decision rejecting Ecuador’s challenge to the award.
Continue reading Lago Agrio: Ecuador Pays Arbitral Award
The case of the day is Plastech Holding Corp. v. WM Greentech Automotive Corp. (E.D. Mich. 2016). PHC sued WM Industries Corp., GreenTech Automotive Corp., and GreenTech Automotive Inc. JAC Motors, a non-party, sought to intervene in the case, but PHC opposed its motion, because the contract between JAC and PHC had an agreement calling for arbitration in Hong Kong. The motion for leave to intervene was allowed, and PHC amended its complaint to state a claim against JAC. PHC then served notices for depositions of eleven JAC witnesses who resided in Taiwan. The notices called for the depositions to take place in Michigan.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Plastech Holding Corp. v. WM Greentech
An arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea issued its long-awaited Award in the case the Philippines brought against China arising out of China’s claims in the South China Sea. I’m not a specialist in this area and so I’m not going to offer any detailed comment—you probably want to look to Julian Ku or others for that. Most experts predicted this was an easy win for the Philippines, and that’s how it turned out. The key point, it seems to me, was the tribunal’s decision that China’s maritime entitlements are defined by the Convention, and that even if China had some kind of “historic rights” (the nature and justification of which have never been made clear), they were extinguished when China acceded to the Convention. You can’t own the sea. There was more. Because some features claimed by China did not create exclusive economic zones, areas of the sea around those features were, according to the tribunal, within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone, and China had wrongfully interfered with the Philippines’ activity within its EEZ. Some features claimed by China were low-tide elevations that did not even give rise to a twelve-mile territorial sea.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Philippines v. China