3 ms·

Does it exclude the pharmaceutical and agricultural industries as well? Those are two of the big areas people are concerned about with the TPP/TTIP/TISA/CETA.

tptacek 11y ago
We're talking here about the dispute resolution process, which the commenter upthread is presumably commenting about because it was the topic of a Last Week With John Oliver episode a few months ago. The dispute resolution process excludes tobacco, according to the NYT.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  Yes I know that's what is being discussed. However, even if the tobacco industry is exempt from this particular trade deal, it's important to consider which industries are not exempt. BAT suing Australia over plain cigarette packaging wasn't a one off case of ISDS being used to sue a country. Another example would be Lone Pine Resources suing Canada $250 million (USD I believe) over Quebec trying to ban fracking. In other words, whilst I'll be glad if the tobacco industry aren't able to use ISDS to sue a country, there are plenty of other industries that could cause problems with this clause.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    How else is anyone supposed to litigate trade disputes? The whole concept of a trade agreement is that countries agree to a series of regulations. There is no such thing as "international law". It is entirely ad hoc. There is no court that has proper jurisdiction over international trade dispute. Shouldn't it be immediately obvious why a company that ostensibly had mining rights in Canada can't expect a fair result to a dispute with Canada by suing in Canadian court?
    - ZenoArrow 11y ago
      > "How else is anyone supposed to litigate trade disputes?" In a court system with public oversight, just like the rest of us. > "Shouldn't it be immediately obvious why a company that ostensibly had mining rights in Canada can't expect a fair result to a dispute with Canada by suing in Canadian court?" This is the reason why ISDS clauses came into being, to discourage governments from changing rules that may affect their profits, even if the choice was made democratically. Whilst I understand why companies would want it, I see democratic decisions as having precedent over company profits. If there's a situation where one side has to lose out, then I'd want that to be the company rather than the people of a country. It's a risk investing in infrastructure or products that can cause problems with public or environmental health. Why should the people of a country have to carry the can if a company chooses to make a risky investment? Here's another example of a ISDS trade dispute, El Salvador being sued $301 million USD by OceanaGold, with El Salvador resisting the gold mining that OceanaGold want to carry out because of the risk of poisoning their water supply... http://www.equaltimes.org/will-el-salvador-be-forced-to-pay?lang=en#.VhKxr-zkJ2s http://www.equaltimes.org/will-el-salvador-be-forced-to-pay?...
      - abduhl 11y ago
        Are you implying that a contract, legally entered into by a democratically elected government, should be able to be rescinded without need for compensation whenever the government or electorate feels like it? This is the type of thinking that leads to nationalization of property without compensation, such as that being done in Venezuela and that which is expressly prohibited by the US Constitution - and it's prohibited for good reason.
        ZenoArrow 11y ago
        > "Are you implying that a contract, legally entered into by a democratically elected government, should be able to be rescinded without need for compensation whenever the government or electorate feels like it?" In answer to your question, not on the whim of a government, but in the case of the electorate, yes, whenever they feel like it. We're not talking about a life or death situation here, we're talking about a company's profits vs. the will of the people. The population of a country should have the final say in what they want to do with their country, if a government makes a bad decision on their behalf that benefits companies over people that's their mistake. It's up to companies to decide if they want to risk profiting from these deals.
    - crdoconnor 11y ago
      >How else is anyone supposed to litigate trade disputes? In the country's courts, much like any other commercial dispute. >Shouldn't it be immediately obvious why a company that ostensibly had mining rights in Canada can't expect a fair result to a dispute with Canada by suing in Canadian court? No. If you assume a fair, transparent legal system, which Canada more or less has then you should expect a fair result. The legal status of the mining rights can be agreed upon as part of the treaty, much as it is in any other trade treaty. It ought to be immediately obvious that a secret court that supersedes national law overseen by corporate lawyers is not going to deliver a fair result.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >the commenter upthread is presumably commenting about because it was the topic of a Last Week With John Oliver episode a few months ago Somebody is clearly more well versed in popular culture than I am. >The dispute resolution process excludes tobacco, according to the NYT. Which apparently happened just yesterday. Perhaps "pop culture oversight" of trade treaties isn't such a bad thing.

tptacek 11y ago

We're talking here about the dispute resolution process, which the commenter upthread is presumably commenting about because it was the topic of a Last Week With John Oliver episode a few months ago. The dispute resolution process excludes tobacco, according to the NYT.

ZenoArrow 11y ago
Yes I know that's what is being discussed. However, even if the tobacco industry is exempt from this particular trade deal, it's important to consider which industries are not exempt. BAT suing Australia over plain cigarette packaging wasn't a one off case of ISDS being used to sue a country. Another example would be Lone Pine Resources suing Canada $250 million (USD I believe) over Quebec trying to ban fracking. In other words, whilst I'll be glad if the tobacco industry aren't able to use ISDS to sue a country, there are plenty of other industries that could cause problems with this clause.
- tptacek 11y ago
  How else is anyone supposed to litigate trade disputes? The whole concept of a trade agreement is that countries agree to a series of regulations. There is no such thing as "international law". It is entirely ad hoc. There is no court that has proper jurisdiction over international trade dispute. Shouldn't it be immediately obvious why a company that ostensibly had mining rights in Canada can't expect a fair result to a dispute with Canada by suing in Canadian court?
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    > "How else is anyone supposed to litigate trade disputes?" In a court system with public oversight, just like the rest of us. > "Shouldn't it be immediately obvious why a company that ostensibly had mining rights in Canada can't expect a fair result to a dispute with Canada by suing in Canadian court?" This is the reason why ISDS clauses came into being, to discourage governments from changing rules that may affect their profits, even if the choice was made democratically. Whilst I understand why companies would want it, I see democratic decisions as having precedent over company profits. If there's a situation where one side has to lose out, then I'd want that to be the company rather than the people of a country. It's a risk investing in infrastructure or products that can cause problems with public or environmental health. Why should the people of a country have to carry the can if a company chooses to make a risky investment? Here's another example of a ISDS trade dispute, El Salvador being sued $301 million USD by OceanaGold, with El Salvador resisting the gold mining that OceanaGold want to carry out because of the risk of poisoning their water supply... http://www.equaltimes.org/will-el-salvador-be-forced-to-pay?lang=en#.VhKxr-zkJ2s http://www.equaltimes.org/will-el-salvador-be-forced-to-pay?...
    - abduhl 11y ago
      Are you implying that a contract, legally entered into by a democratically elected government, should be able to be rescinded without need for compensation whenever the government or electorate feels like it? This is the type of thinking that leads to nationalization of property without compensation, such as that being done in Venezuela and that which is expressly prohibited by the US Constitution - and it's prohibited for good reason.
      - ZenoArrow 11y ago
        > "Are you implying that a contract, legally entered into by a democratically elected government, should be able to be rescinded without need for compensation whenever the government or electorate feels like it?" In answer to your question, not on the whim of a government, but in the case of the electorate, yes, whenever they feel like it. We're not talking about a life or death situation here, we're talking about a company's profits vs. the will of the people. The population of a country should have the final say in what they want to do with their country, if a government makes a bad decision on their behalf that benefits companies over people that's their mistake. It's up to companies to decide if they want to risk profiting from these deals.
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    >How else is anyone supposed to litigate trade disputes? In the country's courts, much like any other commercial dispute. >Shouldn't it be immediately obvious why a company that ostensibly had mining rights in Canada can't expect a fair result to a dispute with Canada by suing in Canadian court? No. If you assume a fair, transparent legal system, which Canada more or less has then you should expect a fair result. The legal status of the mining rights can be agreed upon as part of the treaty, much as it is in any other trade treaty. It ought to be immediately obvious that a secret court that supersedes national law overseen by corporate lawyers is not going to deliver a fair result.
crdoconnor 11y ago
>the commenter upthread is presumably commenting about because it was the topic of a Last Week With John Oliver episode a few months ago Somebody is clearly more well versed in popular culture than I am. >The dispute resolution process excludes tobacco, according to the NYT. Which apparently happened just yesterday. Perhaps "pop culture oversight" of trade treaties isn't such a bad thing.