1 / 9

Escaping Liability via Forum Non Conveniens: ConocoPhillips’s Oil Spill in China Chenglin Liu

Escaping Liability via Forum Non Conveniens: ConocoPhillips’s Oil Spill in China Chenglin Liu St. Mary’s University School of Law March 22, 2013. A Tale of Two Oil Spills. BP’s Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico, 2010 ConocoPhillips’s Oil Spill in China, 2011.

floyd
Download Presentation

Escaping Liability via Forum Non Conveniens: ConocoPhillips’s Oil Spill in China Chenglin Liu

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Escaping Liability via Forum Non Conveniens: ConocoPhillips’s Oil Spill in China Chenglin Liu St. Mary’s University School of LawMarch 22, 2013

  2. A Tale of Two Oil Spills • BP’s Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico, 2010 • ConocoPhillips’s Oil Spill in China, 2011

  3. Chinese Fishermen Sued ConocoPhillips in Houston • Chinese Court refused to hear the fishermen’s claims against ConocoPhillips in 2011. • In July 2012, the fishermen brought an action against ConocoPhillips in the Federal District Court in Houston.

  4. Forum Non Conveniens • Development • Gulf Oil v. Gilbert, 1947 • Piper v. Reyno, 1981 • Two-prong test • Availability and adequacy • Balancing private and public factors

  5. Critiques of the Piper Decision • Lenient requirement on “adequacy test” • Lack of Consistency • Blurring the lines between the two prongs of the test • Out of step with the globalized world

  6. U.S. Courts’ Compelling Interest • Deterring unsafe practices • Protecting U.S. consumers • Protecting environment

  7. Chinese Plaintiffs at U.S. Courts • A 60% chance of losing on forum non conveniens grounds • Lenient requirement on availability and adequacy test. • U.S. courts often refuse to allow consideration of how laws are enforced in China.

  8. The Disparities between Chinese Laws on the Book and in Practice • Laws on the Book • Laws in Practice

  9. Reasons for Inadequacy • Lax Enforcement on MNCs • Local Protectionism • Difficulties in Filing a Case • Lack of Judicial Independence • Coerced Mediation • Lack of Remedy

More Related