4 ms·
>A better way to describe the relevant clauses is that corporations can sue governments under an international tribunal system if governments are failing to uph
by crdoconnor 11y ago
>A better way to describe the relevant clauses is that corporations can sue governments under an international tribunal system if governments are failing to uphold their commitments to an international law
It's got jack shit to do with international law.
The wording in the agreement uses the term "indirect expropriation".
It's defined as "where an action or series of actions by a party (government) has an effect equivalent to direct expropriation without formal transfer of title or outright seizure".
i.e. lost profits caused by legislation. kinda like when Australia decided to put warning labels on cigarette packs.
Oh, and the supra-national court will be adjudicated by some corporate lawyers who can probably relied upon to interpret the wording of the above agreement in the "right" way.
- tptacek 11y agoOnce again: the TPP excluded tobacco from ISDS.
- crdoconnor 11y agoAnd? It's still a clear example of how the ISDS would be used (by other corporations).
- Camillo 11y agoIt's a good thing that tobacco is the last harmful or controversial trade product we'll ever see.
- mcherm 11y agoHow do you know? Were you a participant in the talks? Have you analyzed the text of the treaty?
- tptacek 11y agoBecause the NYT reported it, in the very article we're comment on.