4 ms·

I think it's something that free markets can handle pretty well on their own. Countries that expropriate property will see less investment in the future, that'

I think it's something that free markets can handle pretty well on their own. Countries that expropriate property will see less investment in the future, that's a pretty strong incentive. Also, in e.g. a US-Europe trade deal there is very little real need for ISDS. Both countries have court systems dating several hundred years back. Another market solution is insurance, where a company can simply insure against expropriation or similar.

avar 10y ago
> I think it's something that free markets > can handle pretty well on their own. The entire point of these deals is that some random US company in some random US state shouldn't have to worry about dealing with some random EU company in some random EU country, for any value of state/country for the two. There should be unified standards. Saying that you should just let the free market handle it is the libertarian idea that now every company needs to have expertise in international politics in order to invest or do business, as opposed to just having a well regulated market. > Both countries have court systems > dating several hundred years back. Which doesn't mean that those courts are compatible in their decisions, or would treat foreigners fairly, which is what the ISDS addresses. > Another market solution is insurance. I.e. wasted capital because of uncertainty incurred by a lack of free trade guarantees, something a free trade agreement would address. We could just not waste that capital to begin with. The entire point of a free trade agreement is to remove those hurdles where you don't have to buy insurance or hedge your bets just to sell something to another country.
- rodgerd 10y ago
  > There should be unified standards. Why should the people of Germany be bound by the whims of the people of Delaware?
  - avar 10y ago
    Bound? The people of Germany, in this example, voted for a government that approved the TTIP. If they don't like it they can vote again and leave the agreement. If it's not obvious from my comments I'm not advocating for agreements like the TTIP or other agreements that enforce international trade in this comment chain. I'm just saying that if people want agreements like that in some shape or form that's going to necessarily result in some loss of national sovereignty. Any international trade agreement worth its salt will do that. As an example. Let's say there's been an agreement between the US and Germany to enforce no tariffs on their trade. Now Germany is massively subsidizing its steel industry and there's a Delaware startup trying to smelt steel to compete with them. Don't you think there should be a dispute mechanism in place to say "hey guys, we agreed to no tariffs, that really doesn't make sense if you subsidize steel and we don't".?
    - sandstrom 10y ago
      You can have such dispute mechanisms without ISDS (most trade-agreements have them, long before ISDS existed).
rurban 10y ago
The problem with the TTIP (and similar deals) is that existing law is changed, and the previous rules that governments are able to govern their state are overruled. The court systems and existing law are overruled. This is no market solution (the strongest wins), this is extortion and the loss of the rule of law.
- avar 10y ago
  > existing law is changed Like every law that's ever been passed has done? > previous rules that governments are > able to govern their state are overruled Like every international agreement that's ever been signed? All of whom give up some state sovereignty. > Court systems and existing law are overruled. I wouldn't say "overruled", at this point the state has agreed to cede certain matters to an international tribunal as part of the trade agreement. So you could say "overruled", you could also say "the parties involved voluntarily decided to change the process". Which doesn't sound that scary, does it? > This is no market solution (the strongest wins) If the strongest was really winning to the detriment of everyone else they could just stop participating in the trade agreement. > This is extortion and the loss of the rule of law. So the rule of law can only exist on the national level, and can't be enforced by an international body that nation-states have agreed to enact? To me that sounds very much like how courts are enacted by states, which most people consider part of the rule of law.

avar 10y ago

> I think it's something that free markets > can handle pretty well on their own. The entire point of these deals is that some random US company in some random US state shouldn't have to worry about dealing with some random EU company in some random EU country, for any value of state/country for the two. There should be unified standards. Saying that you should just let the free market handle it is the libertarian idea that now every company needs to have expertise in international politics in order to invest or do business, as opposed to just having a well regulated market. > Both countries have court systems > dating several hundred years back. Which doesn't mean that those courts are compatible in their decisions, or would treat foreigners fairly, which is what the ISDS addresses. > Another market solution is insurance. I.e. wasted capital because of uncertainty incurred by a lack of free trade guarantees, something a free trade agreement would address. We could just not waste that capital to begin with. The entire point of a free trade agreement is to remove those hurdles where you don't have to buy insurance or hedge your bets just to sell something to another country.

rodgerd 10y ago
> There should be unified standards. Why should the people of Germany be bound by the whims of the people of Delaware?
- avar 10y ago
  Bound? The people of Germany, in this example, voted for a government that approved the TTIP. If they don't like it they can vote again and leave the agreement. If it's not obvious from my comments I'm not advocating for agreements like the TTIP or other agreements that enforce international trade in this comment chain. I'm just saying that if people want agreements like that in some shape or form that's going to necessarily result in some loss of national sovereignty. Any international trade agreement worth its salt will do that. As an example. Let's say there's been an agreement between the US and Germany to enforce no tariffs on their trade. Now Germany is massively subsidizing its steel industry and there's a Delaware startup trying to smelt steel to compete with them. Don't you think there should be a dispute mechanism in place to say "hey guys, we agreed to no tariffs, that really doesn't make sense if you subsidize steel and we don't".?
  - sandstrom 10y ago
    You can have such dispute mechanisms without ISDS (most trade-agreements have them, long before ISDS existed).

rurban 10y ago

The problem with the TTIP (and similar deals) is that existing law is changed, and the previous rules that governments are able to govern their state are overruled. The court systems and existing law are overruled. This is no market solution (the strongest wins), this is extortion and the loss of the rule of law.

avar 10y ago
> existing law is changed Like every law that's ever been passed has done? > previous rules that governments are > able to govern their state are overruled Like every international agreement that's ever been signed? All of whom give up some state sovereignty. > Court systems and existing law are overruled. I wouldn't say "overruled", at this point the state has agreed to cede certain matters to an international tribunal as part of the trade agreement. So you could say "overruled", you could also say "the parties involved voluntarily decided to change the process". Which doesn't sound that scary, does it? > This is no market solution (the strongest wins) If the strongest was really winning to the detriment of everyone else they could just stop participating in the trade agreement. > This is extortion and the loss of the rule of law. So the rule of law can only exist on the national level, and can't be enforced by an international body that nation-states have agreed to enact? To me that sounds very much like how courts are enacted by states, which most people consider part of the rule of law.