4 ms·

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 ind

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.
      - abduhl 11y ago
        Please stop demonizing companies and recognize that companies are made up of employees. This very well could be a life or death situation for a company's employee. The will of the people is fickle and ruthless - that is the most pressing reason why the USA was cast as a republic rather than a democracy. Where does the ultimate power of the electorate end? Does the will of the people override your ability to travel to another state for better work or pay because you're needed desperately at your current locale? Does the will of the people stop you from working in tech because we need more people swinging a hammer? Where is the line in the sand? I know this comes off as a slippery slope argument and it is easy for people who agree with you to simply write these questions off because, gosh darnit, tobacco is bad and we've seen this with tobacco on an HBO show - but really, where is the line?
- 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.

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.
    - abduhl 11y ago
      Please stop demonizing companies and recognize that companies are made up of employees. This very well could be a life or death situation for a company's employee. The will of the people is fickle and ruthless - that is the most pressing reason why the USA was cast as a republic rather than a democracy. Where does the ultimate power of the electorate end? Does the will of the people override your ability to travel to another state for better work or pay because you're needed desperately at your current locale? Does the will of the people stop you from working in tech because we need more people swinging a hammer? Where is the line in the sand? I know this comes off as a slippery slope argument and it is easy for people who agree with you to simply write these questions off because, gosh darnit, tobacco is bad and we've seen this with tobacco on an HBO show - but really, where is the line?
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.