The Interpretation of Environmental Statutory Ambiguity: A Comparative Analysis Between Ecuador and the United States

This Article examines through a comparative analysis the judicial interpretation of ambiguity in environmental statutes between the jurisdictions of the Republic of Ecuador and the United States of America. By analyzing the fundamental principles and doctrines guiding the interpretation of environmental laws in cases of ambiguity and vagueness in both nations, this Article draws out their inherent merits, drawbacks, and criticisms. A review of jurisprudential precedents provides a nuanced understanding of their practical applications. In the Ecuadorian context, particular attention is given to the principles of environmental favorability, and in dubio pro natura, all of which are recognized in its constitution. On the other hand, within the United States, emphasis is on doctrines developed by the U.S. Supreme Court in cases such as Skidmore, Chevron, and the recent Loper Bright decision. In addition, as part of the academic discourse, a proposal will be presented for consideration by the U.S. Congress. This proposal advocates the formulation and enactment of a new statute that integrates civil law principles similar to those included in the Ecuadorian legislation, into environmental law cases and controversies occurring before the courts of the United States. The proposal envisions a synthesis of diverse legal approaches, with the goal of fostering major protection for the environment within the U.S. legal system.