Posts Tagged ‘United States’
May 3, 2013
Howard M. Erichson (Fordham University School of Law) has posted “The Chevron-Ecuador Dispute, Forum Non Conveniens, and the Problem of Ex Ante Inadequacy”, Fordham Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2245889. Here’s the abstract:
This essay, written for the 2013 Stanford Journal of Complex Litigation symposium on lessons from the Chevron-Ecuador environmental litigation, urges that we not take the wrong lesson concerning the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The paper highlights the irony of the forum battles in the litigation. The plaintiffs sued in the United States, the defendants won dismissal on grounds of forum non conveniens (arguing that the dispute should be adjudicated by the courts of Ecuador), the plaintiffs obtained a massive judgment in Ecuador, and the defendants challenged the judgment on grounds of fraud and corruption in the Ecuadorian proceedings. Despite the temptation to see the Chevron-Ecuador litigation as a cautionary tale about forum non conveniens, this essay argues that the “adequate alternative forum” standard for forum non conveniens should remain exceedingly low. Ex ante, deference to foreign legal systems should prevail, even as we permit ex post challenges to recognition of judgments on grounds of fraud and corruption.
Download a copy of the paper at SSRN here.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:Ecuador, Fordham University School of Law, Forum non conveniens, Law school, Lawsuit, Plaintiff, Texaco, United States
Posted in Chevron, Ecuador, foreign judgments, foreign law, forum non conveniens, Lago Agrio | Leave a Comment »
April 17, 2013
The U.S. Supreme Court today released a significant decision on personal jurisdiction in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (No. 10–1491, slip opinion: link). (backgrounder here and here).
The Court unanimously denied the appeal. (more…)
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:Alien Tort Statute, Congress, Kennedy, Samuel Alito, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, Stephen Breyer, Supreme Court of the United States, United States
Posted in Federal, federal courts, federal law, forum non conveniens, forum of necessity, in personam jurisdiction, international human rights, international law, international litigation, jurisdiction, jus cogens, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, SCOTUS, United States, United States Supreme Court | 3 Comments »
April 16, 2013
Alexander Tsesis (Loyola University Chicago School of Law) has posted ”Inflammatory Speech: Offense versus Incitement”, Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 97, 2013/Loyola University Chicago School of Law Research Paper No. 2013-006. Here’s the abstract:
The commonly accepted notion that content regulations on speech violate the First Amendment is misleading. In three recent cases – Snyder v. Phelps, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass’n, and United States v. Stevens – the Court made clear that free speech includes the right to express scurrilous, disgusting, and disagreeable ideas. A different set of cases, however, concluded that group defamation, intentional threats, and material support for terrorist organizations are not protected forms of expression. This Article seeks to make sense of this doctrinal dichotomy and to develop clearer guidelines for regulating incitements that are posted on the Internet and in public areas.
Many leading First Amendment scholars regard the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on outrageous and inciting expressions to be inconsistent. These academic authors often adopt a libertarian theory of the Free Speech Clause. They generally agree with cases that strike limits on offensive statements but disregard, or outright ignore, those that uphold restrictions on threats and defamations made in the absence of any imminent threat of harm. This Article demonstrates that opponents of incitement regulations fail to differentiate policies that protect public safety from those that silence outrageous but benign expressions.
I propose a relatively straightforward method for evaluating the constitutionality of incitement laws. The mens rea of a speaker is key to judicial determinations about whether true threats, group defamation, and material support for terrorists are actionable or constitutionally protected. This Article parses the Court’s analysis of unprotected incitement that poses a threat to public safety. A small but significant group of decisions belies the libertarian claim that incitement is constitutionally protected. My proposal will undoubtedly be controversial because the method I propose would augment juries’ and judges’ authority to assess the context within which threatening statements are made and qualify the relevance of the canonic imminent threat of harm doctrine.
Download a pdf copy of the article via SSRN here.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:United States, First Amendment to the United States Constitution, First Amendment, Minnesota Law Review, Loyola University Chicago School of Law, Snyder v. Phelps, Freedom of the press
Posted in Constitution, First Amendment, Constitutional Rights, freedom of speech, free speech, hate speech, Freedom of expression, Protected Speech, Incitement, Imminent Threat of Harm, Group Defamation, Material Support for Terrorism, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, IIED, Regulation of Speech, Outrageous Speech | Leave a Comment »
February 8, 2013
An interesting development in the Lago Agrio/Chevron litigation battle , which was the subject of my Guest Post: Comments on the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs Enforcement Action in Canada at Ted Folkman’s Letters Blogatory.
Via the Juicio Crudo Blog (original in Spanish):
An international arbitration court yesterday issued a ruling in which it concludes that the Republic of Ecuador has violated previous interim awards of the same court authorized under international law and a treaty between the United States and Ecuador to not attempt to prevent the execution of a sentence of 19,000 million against Chevron Corp. (NYSE: CVX). In previous decisions, the court warned that if the arbitration Chevron ended imposing “any loss arising from the implementation (of the judgment) would be losses for which (the Republic) would be responsible (with Chevron) under international law.”
Convened under the authority of the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT, according to its acronym in English) between the United States and Ecuador, and administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, the tribunal found that Ecuador breached previous court rulings and ordered to explain why the Republic should not be ordered to pay compensation to Chevron for all damages resulting from attempts by plaintiffs to enforce a judgment arising out of an environmental lawsuit against the company in Lago Agrio, Ecuador. (more…)
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:Bilateral Investment Treaty, Chevron, Ecuador, Lago AgrioJudgment, Permanent Court of Arbitration, United States
Posted in arbitration, arbitration clause, Bilateral Investment Treaty, BIT, Chevron, choice of forum, Ecuador, estoppel, foreign arbitral awards, foreign judgments, foreign law, foreign plaintiffs, forum non conveniens, forum selection, forum selection clause, Forum Shopping, International, international arbitration, international commercial arbitration, international human rights, international investment, international law, international litigation, International trade, Lago Agrio, Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague, res judicata | Leave a Comment »
February 4, 2013
Catherine R. Gellis (Digital Age Defense) has published “2012 State of the Law Regarding Internet Intermediary Liability for User-Generated Content“, Business Lawyer, Vol. 68, No. 1, 2012 which contains a summary of key cases regarding 47 U.S.C. Section 230 and 17 U.S.C. Section 512.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:Blog, Communications Decency Act, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Internet service provider, Law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, United States, User-generated content
Posted in 17 U.S.C. Section 512, 47 U.S.C. Section 230, blawging, Blawgosphere, blawgs, blog, communications, hyperlinking, intermediaries, intermediary liability, internet, internet defamation, internet jurisdiction, internet law, Internet Service Providers, Online Defamation, Section 230, user-generated content, website | Leave a Comment »
Antonin I. Pribetic
