Chevron Corporation v. The Republic of Ecuador, 417 App. D.C. 463

Chevron and Ecuador signed a 1973 oil development deal under which Chevron supplied oil to Ecuador below market; the agreement was to expire in 1992 but extensions were unresolved.
By 1995 the parties signed a settlement terminating all rights and obligations but allowing pending lawsuits to continue.
In 1993 Ecuador and the U.S. signed the BIT; the BIT offered a standing right to arbitrate investment disputes, with investment defined broadly.
Chevron commenced international arbitration in The Hague in 2006 alleging Ecuador delayed resolving its lawsuits in violation of the BIT; the tribunal ruled against Ecuador on most breach claims and awarded Chevron about $96 million.
Ecuador challenged the award in the Dutch courts; Chevron then sought confirmation of the arbitral award in the District Court for the District of Columbia under the New York Convention, incorporated into the FAA.
The District Court granted jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6) and, after deferential review of arbitrability, confirmed the award; Ecuador appealed, and the D.C. Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether FSIA provides jurisdiction to confirm an arbitral award governed by a treaty	Chevron contends jurisdiction exists if a non-frivolous claim asserts an arbitration agreement.	Ecuador argues FSIA requires de novo arbitrability review and lack of true agreement.	Chevron met threshold showing; jurisdiction affirmed.
Whether the BIT and Chevron’s arbitration notice constitute a valid arbitration agreement	Chevron argues BIT and notice together form an arbitration agreement.	Ecuador challenges validity of the agreement between BIT/notice.	BIT and notice constitute an arbitration agreement; arbitrability delegated to the tribunal.
Whether arbitrability should be reviewed de novo or deferred to the arbitrator	Chevron relies on contract-like view and BG Group to sustain arbitral delegation.	Ecuador urges de novo review of arbitrability under FSIA.	Arbitrability delegated to arbitrator; Supreme Court BG Group followed; no de novo review required.
Whether confirming the award contravenes NY Convention public-policy grounds	Chevron argues enforcement aligns with NY Convention and US policy favoring arbitral dispute resolution.	Ecuador claims public-policy/public-sovreign concerns bar enforcement.	Public policy not violated; NY Convention grounds satisfied; confirmation proper.

BG Group PLC v. Republic of Argentina, 134 S. Ct. 1198 (2014) (arbitrability delegated to arbitrators under UNCITRAL rules)
Republic of Argentina v. BG Group PLC, 665 F.3d 1363 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (treaty arbitrability treated as contract-like; court declines de novo review)
Belize Soc. Dev. Ltd. v. Gov’t of Belize, 668 F.3d 724 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (NY Convention enforcement grounds limited by public policy)
Chabad of U.S. v. Russian Fed’n, 528 F.3d 934 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (existence of arbitration agreement is factual predicate; burden on sovereign)
Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985) (strong federal policy favoring arbitral dispute resolution)
Chabad of U.S. v. Russian Fed’n, 528 F.3d 934 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (see above)
Oracle America, Inc. v. Myriad Group A.G., 724 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2013) (incorporation of UNCITRAL rules signals arbitrability by tribunal)
Schneider v. Kingdom of Thailand, 688 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2012) (arbitrability questions under BIT/UNCITRAL rules)
Verlinden B.V. v. Cent. Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480 (1983) (FSIA exceptions are sole bases for jurisdiction)
Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428 (1989) (FSIA arbitration exception governs jurisdiction)