Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by gzer0 1696 days ago
The Court of Arbitration's findings of fraudulent activities included that the evidence placed before the Court is "the most thorough documentary, video, and testimonial proof of fraud ever put before an arbitral tribunal"

This was not a “flimsy” case.
1 comments
dvdkhlng 1696 days ago
Interestingly, the United Nations Human Rights Office's has quite the opposite opinion regarding the Evron vs. Donziger case (the one in the US that lead to Donziger's house arrest) [1].

"The Working Group recalls that it is inherent to the proper exercise of judicial power that it be exercised by an authority that is independent, objective and impartial in relation to the issues dealt with, as asserted by the Human Rights Committee in relation to article 9 (3) of the Covenant. In the present case, the Working Group is of the view that Judge P did not act in a manner which was independent, objective and impartial in relation to Mr. Donziger’s case. Consequently, the Working Group concludes that the imposition of pretrial detention upon Mr. Donziger was in violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant. "

[1] https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Detention/Opinions/Se...

link
useragent86 1696 days ago
And what does that have to do with the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague? And why does a UN working group's opinion on anything matter? Are they a more fair and unbiased judge than the PCA, and was the case presented to them by both sides for judgment?
link
dvdkhlng 1695 days ago
You are right, it does not say anything about the Permanent Court of Arbitration's decision on the matter. I was more trying to make the point, that various court decisions related to this matter (the original decision against chevron as well as the case against Donziger) seem to be cast into doubt by external "impartial looking" entities, turning the water very, very muddy here.

But then I must admit, that I do not have a very high opinion of "arbitration courts" in general, as often they seem to have various conflicts of interests with regards to how they earn money by being paid by parties bringing the cases (i.e. deciding against the interests of a party which usually provides high-income cases, would risk the court's own financing).

link