## Facts

- Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Company (TexPet) initiated arbitration against the Republic of Ecuador under the Ecuador–U.S. bilateral investment treaty and the 1976 UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
- The dispute arose from TexPet’s historical oil operations in Ecuador and subsequent environmental litigation brought in Ecuadorian courts by private plaintiffs (the Lago Agrio litigation) against Chevron and TexPet.
- An Ecuadorian trial court entered a multi-billion-dollar judgment against Chevron in the Lago Agrio case; the plaintiffs threatened global recognition and enforcement.
- Claimants alleged the Lago Agrio proceedings and resulting judgment involved serious procedural unfairness and sought treaty relief, including protection against denial of justice.
- While the arbitration was pending, the tribunal had previously granted interim measures through earlier orders and a First Interim Award directing Ecuador, in substance, to act to suspend the enforceability of the Lago Agrio judgment.
- After the First Interim Award, an Ecuadorian appellate court affirmed the Lago Agrio judgment, increasing the risk of imminent enforcement actions in multiple jurisdictions.
- Claimants sought further and revised interim measures; Ecuador opposed, arguing (among other points) that measures affecting enforcement would intrude into domestic judicial functions.
- Following an oral hearing, the tribunal issued a Second Interim Award expressly framed as interim relief and not as a ruling on jurisdiction or the merits.

## Issues

1. Whether the tribunal had authority under the treaty and the 1976 UNCITRAL Rules to grant interim measures in the form of a binding interim award.
2. Whether the prerequisites for interim measures (including prima facie jurisdiction, plausibility of the asserted rights, necessity, and urgency) were satisfied.
3. What obligations Ecuador could be ordered to undertake regarding recognition and enforcement of the Lago Agrio judgment, consistent with the State’s international responsibility and internal separation of powers.

## Decision

- The tribunal granted interim relief in the form of a Second Interim Award, maintaining and strengthening prior interim measures.
- Ecuador was ordered to take all measures at its disposal to suspend, or cause to be suspended, the recognition and enforcement of the Lago Agrio judgment pending the arbitration’s resolution.
- The tribunal characterized the relief as legally binding on Ecuador as an arbitral award (not merely a procedural order), intended to preserve the effectiveness of the arbitration.
- The tribunal did not decide the merits of the treaty claims and treated its jurisdictional assessment at this stage as prima facie.

## Legal Principles

- An arbitral tribunal constituted under an investment treaty and the 1976 UNCITRAL Rules may order interim measures in award form to protect the parties’ rights and the effectiveness of the proceedings.
- Interim measures may be warranted where imminent enforcement of a domestic judgment risks irreparable harm or would render a later arbitral award ineffective.
- In crafting interim measures addressed to a State, the tribunal may impose obligations at the international level (e.g., requiring the State to use measures within its disposal) without directly commanding domestic courts, leaving the method of internal compliance to the State.
- Compliance with binding interim measures can constitute an international obligation; failure to comply may itself give rise to treaty responsibility.

## Conclusion

The tribunal issued a binding interim award requiring Ecuador to use all measures within its power to suspend recognition and enforcement of the Lago Agrio judgment while the arbitration proceeded, based on the urgency and necessity of preserving the arbitration’s practical effectiveness and the claimant’s asserted treaty rights.


Chevron Corp. & Texaco Petroleum Co. v. Republic of Ecuador, PCA Case No. 2009-23 (Feb. 16, 2012)