Chevron v. Ecuador
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
795 F.3d 200 (2015)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
In 1973, Chevron Corporation (plaintiff) and Ecuador (defendant) signed an agreement allowing Chevron to drill for oil in Ecuador in exchange for provision of oil to the Ecuadorian government at a reduced rate. When the parties could not come to a renewal agreement in 1992, Chevron filed a series of breach-of-contract lawsuits against Ecuador. In 1993, the United States and Ecuador entered a bilateral investment treaty (BIT). The BIT included a standing offer from Ecuador to arbitrate disputes involving American investments, which included any monetary claim. Pursuant to the BIT, Chevron decided to arbitrate its breach-of-contract claims against Ecuador and gave notice to Ecuador of this decision. Chevron filed an international arbitration claim before an international tribunal in the Hague. The tribunal ruled in Chevron’s favor. The District Court of the Hague, the Hague Court of Appeal, and the Dutch Supreme Court all ruled in Chevron’s favor on appeal. Chevron filed suit in United States district court, seeking confirmation of the judgment from a domestic court. The district court ruled in Chevron’s favor. Ecuador appealed, arguing among other things that American courts did not have jurisdiction over Chevron’s claims.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wilkins, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,600 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
