31 ms·

Sovereign immunity is waived in case of monetary damages, so I believe they already can. Nor is there any reason why in principle they shouldn't, if the inverse

• pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  >Nor is there any reason why in principle they shouldn't // Philip Morris moved to Switzerland. Switzerland had a trade agreement with Uruguay. Uruguay take public health actions (increase size of warnings on cigarette packets). Now PM tobacco can sue Uruguay for enacting laws that harm a Swiss company. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/big-tobacco-puts-countries-on-trial-as-concerns-over-ttip-deals-mount-9807478.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-feat...) That seems a reason not to allow this sort of thing. Or at very least to ensure that certain types of actions of states are allowed regardless of impact on extra-national corporations profits - anything that improves the health of citizens for example. A limitation of recompense up to the total tax paid by that corporation in the relevant country would be a good clause too. Imagine is coffee is found to cause bowel cancer and instead of using funds to help your citizens your country pays Starbucks for their lost profits because you issued a notice to your citizens warning them of the detrimental effect; meanwhile Starbucks through clever IPR moves have offshored most of their profits and avoided paying tax in your country ...