by Rhodri C. Williams
This being a blog on the legal aspect of conflicts over land and natural resources, it has become increasingly untenable to continue ignoring one of the most bitter and protracted such disputes of all time, namely the Chevron-Ecuador case. At the same time, given the numerous twists and turns this litigation has taken in its various phases, trying to catch up with it, let alone say something meaningful on it, seemed well beyond my faculties.
Based on the reading I have been able to do, I was also aware of the strong passions the case has raised. For instance, this overview in the New Yorker portrays the conflict as a battle of wills between two highly willful lawyers – in effect, the unstoppable victims’ advocate meets the immovable corporate defense attorney. Recent exchanges on Opinio Juris between contributor Kevin Jon Heller, on one hand, and Notre Dame professor Doug Cassell have similarly struggled to keep to the genteel conventions of non-dittohead neighborhoods of the blogosphere (see in particular this exchange in comments).
For all these reasons, I have been cautious in approaching the toxic debate about the toxic lawsuit over the toxic sludge of Lago Agrio. However, I am now all the more happy to be able to provide a forum to repeat TN guest and South American Law & Policy blog author Nicholas Fromherz, who will focus on the broader implications revealed by the case for parties to transnational litigation of all stripes.
Nick’s post has now been published as:
An inconvenient forum: Thoughts on the Chevron-Ecuador Case (30 March 2012)