When a judicial system lacks impartial tribunals or procedures, a United States court must decline to recognize a foreign money judgment from that nation. This mandatory ground for nonrecognition has received considerable scholarly attention, most notably for its interplay with the doctrine of forum non conveniens in denying meaningful resolution of the claims of foreign plaintiffs. This article applies rhetoric to examine the judicial opinions at the trial and appellate levels that have addressed this ground in two high-profile toxic tort cases: the claims of Nicaraguans against several U.S. multinationals for pesticide exposure, and those of Ecuadorans against Chevron for harms related to petroleum operations. This rhetorical analysis reveals that trial courts have engaged in thorough analyses when applying the systemic inadequacy ground, but that the appellate courts have engaged in a number of tactics to avoid addressing it, thus exposing broader questions about justice and rule of law for all stakeholders
