That "neutral" link reads impartially, but leaves out a whole lot of the story. Here's a more detailed breakdown: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/democraciaabi

That "neutral" link reads impartially, but leaves out a whole lot of the story. Here's a more detailed breakdown: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/democraciaabierta/chevron-vs-ecuador-international-arbitration-and-corporate-impunity/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/democraciaabierta/chevron-v... You may argue the source is biased, but after reading it you can still reach one of two conclusions: The Ecuadorian courts are correct, or the CPA is correct. It wouldn't be very surprising if Ecuadorian courts put the interests of its country first in the ruling. But it would be equally unsurprising, to me, that an international court finds in favor of international treaties written to protect foreign investors' returns in extractive enterprises. It's been an effective rebranding of colonialism