Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-01T21:31:17.470Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Chevron-Ecuador Case: Three Dimensions of Complexity in Transnational Dispute Resolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

Christopher A. Whytock
Christopher A. Whytock*
Affiliation:
Political Science, University of California, Irvine School of Law
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
The Chevron-Ecuador Dispute: A Paradigm of Complexity
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 106 , 2012 , pp. 425 - 428
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Quintanilla, Marcus S. & Whytock, Christopher A., The New Multipolarity in Transnational Litigation: Foreign Courts, Foreign Judgments, and Foreign Law, 18 Sw. J. Int’l L. 31 (2011)Google Scholar. Whytock, Christopher A., The Evolving Forum Shopping System, 96 Cornell L. Rev. 481, 507-16 (2011)Google Scholar.

3 Gulland, Eugene, All the World’s a Forum, Nat’l L.J., Feb. 11, 2002, at 1–3.Google Scholar

4 Behrens, Mark A., Fowler, Gregory L. & Kim, Silvia, Global Litigation Trends, 17 Mich. St. J. Int’l L. 165, 193-94 (2009)Google Scholar.

5 Born, Gary B. & Rutledge, Peter B., International Civil Litigation in United States Courts 1078 (4th ed. 2007)Google Scholar.

6 Quintanilla & Whytock, supra note 1, at 35-37.

7 See generally Whytock, Christopher A. & Robertson, Cassandra Burke, Forum Non Conveniens and the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, 111 Colum. L. Rev. 1444 (2011)Google Scholar (proposing doctrinal changes to avoid transnational access to justice gap that can result from the different adequacy standards).

8 § 4(a)(1) [emphasis added].

9 See 2005 Act § 4(c)(8) (a court need not recognize a judgment if “the specific proceeding in the foreign court leading to the judgment was not compatible with the requirements of due process of law”).

10 American Law Institute, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments: Analysis and Pro Posed Federal Statute 59 (2006>).

11 233 F.3d 473, 477 (7th Cir. 2000).

12 2005 Act § 4, cmt. 7.

13 Id.

14 Id. See also American Law Institute, supra note 10, at 62.