3 ms·

What exactly would be the point of finding the host government except to get them to change their laws?

tptacek 11y ago
Think about it in the abstract. Country X and country Y are trading partners. Country X wants concession A from Y, who in turn wants concession B from X. They agree to trade concessions and encode it in a treaty. For several years, X and Y enjoy the economic benefits of those concessions. Then X passes a law that vitiates, say, 50% of the economic benefit of concession B. It is now free-riding off Y; Y is giving it concession A, but X is only giving 50% of concession B owing to the law that contravenes the treaty. Y is entitled to make a claim for damages. Not to change the law (treaties don't work that way), but rather to make and resolve the argument of the form "I am giving you (A) and you're only giving me 0.5(B); make up the difference in cash."
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  Uh, it's a corporation that sues the host government. For lost profits. This is presumably supposed to be a strong incentive to prevent host governments from changing their laws in such a way that they might damage guest company profits. Much like a fine for breaking the law. Why would you consider that a controversial point of view?
- pjc50 11y ago
  So we're establishing a property-like right to a profit in perpetuity, and if the product in question is found to be harmful the seller is entitled to compensation? http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/18/australia-wins-international-legal-battle-with-philip-morris-over-plain-packaging http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/18/austra... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Morris_v._Uruguay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Morris_v._Uruguay That's how the "concession" will pay out in practice. Y is entitled to make a claim for damages Your example is slightly off. In the TPP, it's not the countries that are parties to the treaty that are suing, but individual businesses. (There are plenty of treaties that oblige the passing of laws directly, as a means of implementing the treaty; everything from the Montreal convention on air passenger compensation to NAFTA)
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    Edit: Oops, I misread your comment. Party means any State or separate customs territory for which this Agreement is in force; https://www.readthetpp.com/ch01.html https://www.readthetpp.com/ch01.html Too bad they don't have anchors for significant sections/items, I'd direct link the definition of "Party" given in the treaty. But the text I quoted is on that page there.
- aninhumer 11y ago
  If Country X stops honouring the treaty, then Country Y should simply stop honouring it as well. Trying to get damages instead is denying Country X's sovereignty to defy the treaty.
slowmovintarget 11y ago
This creates an extra-governmental wealth transfer mechanism.

Think about it in the abstract. Country X and country Y are trading partners. Country X wants concession A from Y, who in turn wants concession B from X. They agree to trade concessions and encode it in a treaty. For several years, X and Y enjoy the economic benefits of those concessions. Then X passes a law that vitiates, say, 50% of the economic benefit of concession B. It is now free-riding off Y; Y is giving it concession A, but X is only giving 50% of concession B owing to the law that contravenes the treaty. Y is entitled to make a claim for damages. Not to change the law (treaties don't work that way), but rather to make and resolve the argument of the form "I am giving you (A) and you're only giving me 0.5(B); make up the difference in cash."

crdoconnor 11y ago
Uh, it's a corporation that sues the host government. For lost profits. This is presumably supposed to be a strong incentive to prevent host governments from changing their laws in such a way that they might damage guest company profits. Much like a fine for breaking the law. Why would you consider that a controversial point of view?
pjc50 11y ago
So we're establishing a property-like right to a profit in perpetuity, and if the product in question is found to be harmful the seller is entitled to compensation? http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/18/australia-wins-international-legal-battle-with-philip-morris-over-plain-packaging http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/18/austra... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Morris_v._Uruguay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Morris_v._Uruguay That's how the "concession" will pay out in practice. Y is entitled to make a claim for damages Your example is slightly off. In the TPP, it's not the countries that are parties to the treaty that are suing, but individual businesses. (There are plenty of treaties that oblige the passing of laws directly, as a means of implementing the treaty; everything from the Montreal convention on air passenger compensation to NAFTA)
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Edit: Oops, I misread your comment. Party means any State or separate customs territory for which this Agreement is in force; https://www.readthetpp.com/ch01.html https://www.readthetpp.com/ch01.html Too bad they don't have anchors for significant sections/items, I'd direct link the definition of "Party" given in the treaty. But the text I quoted is on that page there.
aninhumer 11y ago
If Country X stops honouring the treaty, then Country Y should simply stop honouring it as well. Trying to get damages instead is denying Country X's sovereignty to defy the treaty.

slowmovintarget 11y ago

This creates an extra-governmental wealth transfer mechanism.