환경 소송과 국제투자중재- 쉐브론 사건을 중심으로 (Case Study on Treaty-Based Investor-State Arbitration and Environmental Litigations with Specific Reference to Chevron/Ecuador Litigation)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국중재학회
· 수록지 정보 : 중재연구 / 25권 / 4호 / 3 ~ 23페이지
· 저자명 : 강병근

초록

에콰도르 내 석유개발사업으로 인한 환경오염과 관련해서, 미국 국적의 투자회사와 투자유치국인 에콰도르의 국제투자중재사건을 다루었다. 이 사건의 주된 쟁점 사항은 환경침해 소송과 관련한 에콰도르 법원의 판단이 미국-에콰도르 BIT를 어느 정도 위반하였는지의 여부이다.

영어초록

The Chevron saga including Chevron/TexPet v. Ecuador, PCA Case No. 34877(hereinafter referred to as “Chevron I”) and Chevron/TexPet v. Ecuador, PCA Case No. 2009-23(hereinafter referred to as “Chevron II”) started out of domestic litigations between TexPet and Ecuador in the early 1990s. In Chevron I, the Tribunal decided that Article 2(7) of the U.S.-Ecuador BIT on effective means of provision was breached because of undue delays in the seven legal proceedings TexPet had brought against Ecuador in respect to contractual obligations. In Chevron II, it was contended that through the actions and inactions of the judiciary and the executive, Ecuador breached her several obligations under the BIT. Ecuador objected to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal because TexPet’s investment was terminated in 1992, and because Chevron is not a party to the 1995 Settlement Agreement and 1998 Final Release. In its Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, the Tribunal applied a prima facie standard to the facts alleged by the Claimants but denied by the Respondent, and decided that questions in respect of the Respondent’s jurisdictional objections should be joined to the merits under Article 21(4) of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. In the merits phase of Chevron II, the Tribunal divided the merits of the Parties’ dispute into two parts, entitled “Track 1” and “Track 2”. In its Partial Award on Track 1, the Tribunal decided that Chevron is a “Releasee” under the 1995 Settlement Agreement. In a decision on “Track 1B”, the Tribunal decided that the Lago Agrio complaint cannot be read as pleading “exclusively” or “only” diffuse claims, and that, to this extent, the Claimants’ reliance on the 1995 Settlement Agreement as a complete bar to the Lago Agrio complaint must fail, as a matter of Ecuadorian law. The Tribunal maintained the position that the Parties’ disputes on both merit and jurisdiction should be reserved for Track 2. It remains to be seen how the Tribunal addresses the Claimants’ allegations of multiple denials of justice under international law against the judgments of the Respondent’s Courts, together with the Respondent’s jurisdictional objections in Track 2 of the arbitration.

참고자료

· 없음