2 ms·

> So, each country could very easily create, and enforce, its own set of laws that would prohibit all of the crimes you mention. The problem here is enforcemen

> So, each country could very easily create, and enforce, its own set of laws that would prohibit all of the crimes you mention. The problem here is enforcement. It's one thing to pass a law. But you have to devote state resources to every law to make sure people aren't evading it. Competent, incorruptible public servants are rare and even if they weren't, you'd have to pay all of them. Resource-poor states just can't do it. In practice all small countries can really do is accept foreign aid wherever you can get it. When you're dealing with bad actors with legal budgets bigger than your entire annual tax revenue, enforcement is hard.

tptacek 10y ago
In ISDS cases where foreigners seek relief from the US government, corporations with giant budgets aren't facing off against other countries. Instead, the US itself appoints an arbitrator (since the US isn't taken to ISDS panels all that often, you can quickly get a sense of the kinds of arbitrators they pick from the UNCTAD site: spoiler: they're international trade lawyers). In ISDS cases where US investors seek relief from foreign countries, the US is only slightly better than 50/50 in winning cases. Most US->foreign cases are done under NAFTA and most of those pertain to Canada. If you narrow the 138 US->foreign cases tracked by UNCTAD down to those against countries whose annual tax revenue is lower than the largest US corporation, you'll find 20 cases, most of which pertain to Venezuela and Kazakhstan. To me, this cuts against the argument that ISDS is just another vector with which the rich can buy justice for themselves.
- tomp 10y ago
  > the US is only slightly better than 50/50 in winning cases That doesn't account for (1) the asymmetry of the lawsuits - if the company loses, no big deal, but if a country loses, it has to pay up or change its laws, and (2) according to several articles I've read, many countries are afraid of ISDS lawsuits and the high penalties they might result in, so they will modify their laws just off the threat of an ISDS lawsuit.
- vinceguidry 10y ago
  > ISDS is just another vector with which the rich can buy justice for themselves. I don't think it's that simple either. It was probably started with the best of intentions and is staffed by well-meaning, competent administrators. The problem is that it's not enough. In the same way normal US police departments can become vulnerable to subversion through tactics like swatting, the ISDS is vulnerable to concerted attempts to subvert the system for personal gain. And there is every reason for them to want to do so.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    As was pointed out elsewhere on the thread, these cases are all tracked. Can you cite some of the successful abusive ones?

tptacek 10y ago

In ISDS cases where foreigners seek relief from the US government, corporations with giant budgets aren't facing off against other countries. Instead, the US itself appoints an arbitrator (since the US isn't taken to ISDS panels all that often, you can quickly get a sense of the kinds of arbitrators they pick from the UNCTAD site: spoiler: they're international trade lawyers). In ISDS cases where US investors seek relief from foreign countries, the US is only slightly better than 50/50 in winning cases. Most US->foreign cases are done under NAFTA and most of those pertain to Canada. If you narrow the 138 US->foreign cases tracked by UNCTAD down to those against countries whose annual tax revenue is lower than the largest US corporation, you'll find 20 cases, most of which pertain to Venezuela and Kazakhstan. To me, this cuts against the argument that ISDS is just another vector with which the rich can buy justice for themselves.

tomp 10y ago
> the US is only slightly better than 50/50 in winning cases That doesn't account for (1) the asymmetry of the lawsuits - if the company loses, no big deal, but if a country loses, it has to pay up or change its laws, and (2) according to several articles I've read, many countries are afraid of ISDS lawsuits and the high penalties they might result in, so they will modify their laws just off the threat of an ISDS lawsuit.
vinceguidry 10y ago
> ISDS is just another vector with which the rich can buy justice for themselves. I don't think it's that simple either. It was probably started with the best of intentions and is staffed by well-meaning, competent administrators. The problem is that it's not enough. In the same way normal US police departments can become vulnerable to subversion through tactics like swatting, the ISDS is vulnerable to concerted attempts to subvert the system for personal gain. And there is every reason for them to want to do so.
- tptacek 10y ago
  As was pointed out elsewhere on the thread, these cases are all tracked. Can you cite some of the successful abusive ones?