Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
2011INTERNATIONALARBITRATIONREPORTTHESTATEOFNECESSITYDEFENSEININVESTOR-STATEARBITRATIONREVISITINGTHEJURISPRUDENCEINTHEAFTERMATHOFTHEENRONANDSEMPRAANNULMENTDECISIONS8InreRepublicofEcuadore.g.InreChevronCorp.ChevronCorp.v.StratusConsultingInc.InreRepublicofEcuadorInreVeigadictaConclusiontwof1782tointernationalarbitration.2010U.S.Dist.LEXIS132045N.D.Cal.Dec.12010.Thereareanumberofother1782proceedingspendingthroughouttheUnitedStatesrelatedtotheChevron-Ecuadordispute.See2010U.S.Dist.LEXIS114724N.D.Ga.March22010orderingdepositionofEcuadorancourt-appointedexpertresidinginGeorgia2010U.S.Dist.LEXIS46778D.Colo.Apr.132010orderingproductionofdocumentsfromoneofEcuadoranplaintiffsconsultants2010U.S.Dist.LEXIS111516E.D.Cal.Oct.132010orderingdepositionofpotentialwitnessinconnectionwithBITarbitration2010U.S.Dist.LEXIS111468D.D.C.Oct.202010orderingdepositionofformercounselforEcuadoranplaintiffs.Atthetimeofwritinganumberofthesecaseswerependingonappealandsomemaybedecidedthisyear.TheChevron-Ecuadorcaseisatypicalforpurposesof1782asbothforeignlitigationandinternationalarbitrationarepending.Insomerespectsthependencyoftheformerallowedthecourtstoavoidsquarelyaddressingthespecicquestionofwhetherthediscoverywouldbeallowedifonlyinaidofarbitration.Inanyeventthecurrentstateofthelawisuncertainandappearstodependinpartonthefederalcircuitwherea1782applicationisledtheFifthCircuitheldinanon-bindingopinionthat1782doesnotapplytointernationalarbitrationstheThirdCircuitstatedinthatthestatuteunquestionablyappliestointernationalinvestmentarbitrationsandtheSecondCircuitpurportedtoavoidtheissuebutallowedthe1782evidencetobeusedintheBITarbitration.MoreoverthemajorityofU.S.Circuitshavenotaddressedtheissue.UnlessanduntiltheU.S.SupremeCourtprovidesauniformbindingdecisionthescopeofapplicabilityof1782willremainuncertain.Stateofnecessityisoneofthelegaldefensesthatagovernmentmayraiseagainstallegedviolationsofitsinternationalobligations.Ifthedefenseisraisedsuccessfullythegovernmentsresponsibilityunderacertainviewcanbetotallyeliminated.WhilethedoctrineofnecessityhasalongpedigreeinpublicinternationallawtheArgentinenancialcrisiswhichreacheditspeakduring2000-2002broughtthedoctrinetotheforeinthefieldofinvestor-Statearbitrationpursuanttobilateralandmultilateralinvestmenttreaties.Thecrisiswasonalargescaleandaffectedvariousindustrialsectorsparticularlytheutilities.MeasuresthatArgentinaadoptedtocontrolthecrisisincludinga2002EmergencyLawhaddisastrousfinancialconsequencesforforeigninvestorsparticularlyforthoseinvestedinthegassector.IntheaftermathoftheArgentineEmergencyLawforeigninvestorscommencedmorethan40investmenttreatyarbitrationcasesagainstArgentinaundervariousbilateralinvestmenttreatiesBITs