3 ms·

Arbitration is a minor issue from a trade agreements point of view. The courts are not used that often, they usually side with states, and they're put in place

Arbitration is a minor issue from a trade agreements point of view. The courts are not used that often, they usually side with states, and they're put in place mostly because neither country wants to give up its sovereignty to be at the mercy of the other country's courts. The natural solution is to make an a-national court to handle international disputes. Politically, the issue has become very polarized, because even allowing an international court to settle disputes is seen as giving up sovereignty. Of course, I would love it if everyone settled in the court of my choosing, but it doesn't work that way. People also get concerned that these courts lack democratic accountability. But of course all courts lack democratic accountability... I should add: here in the states, we worry that these courts are a backdoor for Canadian-conglomerate-friendly courts. They can't be simultaneously friendly to both the US and to Canada...

fmihaila 10y ago
It's less about US vs. Canada (or country A vs. country B), and more about multinationals vs. citizens.
- zeveb 10y ago
  Of course, part of the problem is that citizens (and, more importantly, the representatives those citizens elect) aren't always in the right, either. Remember in the decolonialisation period how many countries nationalised formerly-productive industries, to the great loss of both overseas investors (immediately) and to their own citizens (over time, as the nationalised industries became less and less productive).
  - fmihaila 10y ago
    Granted, but the countries negotiating this treaty already have functional court systems to adjudicate who is wrong or right and to what degree. I strongly disagree with supplanting existing conflict resolution mechanisms that evolved over many years out of the choices of the local citizenry with an opaque, supranational entity whose rules of engagement were negotiated in secret, reflecting primarily the choices of large businesses.

fmihaila 10y ago

It's less about US vs. Canada (or country A vs. country B), and more about multinationals vs. citizens.

zeveb 10y ago
Of course, part of the problem is that citizens (and, more importantly, the representatives those citizens elect) aren't always in the right, either. Remember in the decolonialisation period how many countries nationalised formerly-productive industries, to the great loss of both overseas investors (immediately) and to their own citizens (over time, as the nationalised industries became less and less productive).
- fmihaila 10y ago
  Granted, but the countries negotiating this treaty already have functional court systems to adjudicate who is wrong or right and to what degree. I strongly disagree with supplanting existing conflict resolution mechanisms that evolved over many years out of the choices of the local citizenry with an opaque, supranational entity whose rules of engagement were negotiated in secret, reflecting primarily the choices of large businesses.