This diary is detailed and technical. It's intended to provide an illustration of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), a feature of the TPP and TTIP free-trade agreements.
This information is for the people who have concerns about ISDS, and I've noticed a few of you here, because more knowledge and information is always better. Please read carefully. I would be glad to answer questions if there are any.
The update information is at the end of the diary.
|With Congress getting ready to decide fast-track authority for three new free-trade agreements, TPP, TTIP, & TISA, a reminder comes about the need for protection from the destructive greed of powerful business corporations.
In my inbox this morning was an email from Jean-Luc Mélenchon who heads the Leftist Party in France with news of the last month spent in Ecuador with a European delegation of elected officials and environmentalists visiting the site of the Chevron Affair. What happened there, and the aftermath is a long, convoluted story. The quickest way to jump into it is by watching this short trailer from the award winning 2009 documentary, 'Crude.'
Three years have passed since Ecuador’s Supreme Court awarded an $18 billion settlement to the villagers of Lago Agrio. The court found Chevron liable for dumping toxic waste near a rainforest community with devastating consequences for the villagers who lived there. However, there has been no remediation because Chevron refuses to pay.
The European delegation was invited to inspect the area, which still hasn’t been cleaned up, as Chevron sued to overturn the judgment of Ecuador’s court by obtaining a judgment in its favor in US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The company admitted long ago that it dumped toxic waste into the waterways of the Amazon rainforest and abandoned huge open pits of the stuff as well, but it refuses to accept responsibility for its own actions.
After the Ecuadorean court’s decision, Chevron sold all of its assets in the country, and it left without paying a dime. Legal convolutions followed, with Chevron claiming that the Ecuadorean villagers fabricated their story and won in court with bribery and fraud. The case being heard by Judge Lewis Kaplan in the New York District Court is a countersuit to invalidate the decision of Ecuador’s court.
Whether a US District Court has jurisdiction to overturn the decision of a court in another country isn’t clear. Judge Kaplan’s opinionated remarks disparaging Ecuador and its judicial system indicate that its decisions don’t hold as much weight as those of a London court would, in his estimation.
Lurking in the background is the issue of Investor-State Dispute Settlements (ISDS) which are now a regular element in free-trade agreements like TPP and TTIP.
When a country’s judicial system is unresponsive in a suit arising from a trade-related issue, an ISDS is supposed to offer another means for settling disputes through arbitration. Following that process, an international tribunal cleared Chevron of any wrong-doing last October. For anyone wondering why there are suspicions about the inclusion of ISDS in free-trade agreements, there’s your answer.
Meanwhile, Chevron’s countersuit creeps slowly to its conclusion in New York’s District Court where Judge Lewis Kaplan doesn’t appear to be very sympathetic to the Ecuadorean villagers either. Recent reporting said that Judge Kaplan has insulted and disparaged the Ecuadorians by referring to them as the “so-called plaintiffs.”
Particularly perplexing is the story of a witness who travelled from Ecuador to testify:
|“Another Ecuadorian, Donald Moncayo, who organizes tours of the contaminated areas in the rainforest, traveled for two days from the rainforest to New York's concrete jungle to testify. While on the stand, he mentioned his laptop. Judge Kaplan asked Moncayo if the laptop had with him in New York. When he answered, yes, Kaplan turned to Chevron's lawyer, Randy Mastro, and said, "Take it from here, Mr. Mastro." Mastro then motioned to seize the laptop, and Kaplan ordered it turned over to Chevron within two hours. Since Moncayo was not one of the named defendants in Chevron's RICO case, he had no legal representation. Kaplan denied motions to allow him time to find an attorney.
Afterwards, standing on a noisy New York City street, Moncayo had no idea why three men in expensive black suits in a Lincoln town car were driving away with his laptop, which they kept for 14 hours. On the laptop were photos of his children and wife. This high-drama tactic produced nothing for Chevron, except a story that Moncayo will never forget and will repeat over and over again. His parting words at the airport were, "I will never step foot in this country again."
|Dec 17 2013 (Reuters) - An Ontario appeals court ruled on Tuesday that a group of Ecuadoreans can seek enforcement in Canada of a $9.5 billion judgment against U.S. oil company Chevron Corp, overturning a lower court decision from earlier in the year.
In the latest turn of a two-decade conflict between Chevron and residents of Ecuador's Lago Agrio region in the Amazon jungle, a three-judge panel said the case should proceed, which means the Ecuadoreans can seek damages in Canada that were originally awarded to them in a South American court two years ago.
"After all these years, the plaintiffs deserve to have the recognition and enforcement of the (Ecuadorean) judgment heard on the merits in an appropriate jurisdiction. At this juncture, Ontario is that jurisdiction," the panel wrote in a 29-page decision.
|Free-trade agreements with ISDS provisions are supposed to provide resolution in disputes like the one between Chevron and Ecuador. The tribunal ruled in favor of Chevron based on the trade agreement in effect at the time between the US and Ecuador.
But the most important lesson to be learned from the case is this:
The tribunal didn’t issue the initial ruling on the matter. It's decision came after the decision of Ecuador’s Supreme Court. The tribunal knew that a decision had already been made by the sovereign court of Ecuador and it inserted itself into the decision and overruled it. By doing so, it pushed the boundaries of the ISDS process beyond the established definition.
The EU provides a list of FAQs for its citizens with questions about TTIP. The same information would apply in the US, too, in a reciprocal agreement.
Yet, the tribunal did overrule Ecuador's court. The EU language and the organization that authorizes the tribunals refers to them as a resource available to investors. It seems that they're available to commercial business enterprises but not ordinary individuals. Yet, the tribunal's decision for the dispute between Chevron and Ecuador had a very definite effect on ordinary Ecuadoreans.
For more information about the ISDS tribunals, authorized by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), an arbitration court of the World Bank, follow the link.
For more information about the Chevron vs. Ecuador ISDS decision, this is a knowledgable analysis.
|UPDATE: A hearing has been scheduled.
US Senate Committee on Finance
Smile and Dial
Contact the members of the International Trade, Customs and Global Competitiveness Subcommittee, Chaired by Ron Wyden. Here’s the contact info the rest of the Subcommittee members.
|If you need help crafting your message, here are some suggestions:
1] What is are Investor-State Dispute Settlements? The Senate should know more than the text book answer.
2] How have they been used? Although in existence for years, their use has increased sharply in 2011 & 2012 in ways that were unexpected.
3] How will they be used in the future? Could ISDS evolve into a tool for extortionists as the once innocuous statutory debt limit did?
4] What provisions will be written to protect the US from offshore tribunals? During negotiations, there's an opportunity for the US to write the trade agreement it wants. How are the interests of the public accommodated?