4 ms·

This: > The subreddit arguing that it’s reasonable to give companies power over democratically legitimated governments Is a massive strawman if you're referri

This: > The subreddit arguing that it’s reasonable to give companies power over democratically legitimated governments Is a massive strawman if you're referring to ISDS (which is what it seems). If you want a trade agreement, the terms need enforcement to be unilateral. But political actors in each respective countries will be incentivized not to respect that by internal pressures. So there needs to be a way to settle those disputes, or else you might as well not have any trade agreement. You can dispute the merits of the current court system; I won't, I'm not an expert in that. But saying that this means "companies have power over democratic countries" is absurd. Go look at supreme court cases in any country. How many are "[person] vs [state]" or "entity vs country"? Democratically elected governments can act in ways just as abhorrent as any other entity; that's why the president doesn't have control over, say, what is constitutional or get to control monetary policy.

kuschku 10y ago
> Go look at supreme court cases The supreme courts are democratically determined and justified. For ISDS courts, half of the judges are appointed by the company that is suing. For ICS courts, all the judges are appointed by the nations taking part. That’s why ICS is acceptable, but ISDS is not. > Democratically elected governments can act in ways just as abhorrent as any other entity Correct, but democratically elected governments are put under checks and balances to prevent them from doing so, foreign companies are not.
- cperciva 10y ago
  For ISDS courts, half of the judges are appointed by the company that is suing. The ISDS provision in NAFTA uses a panel of three arbitrators; one appointed by each of the nations involved, and one which is appointed either by consensus or from the third NAFTA nation if consensus cannot be reached. Investors don't get to appoint any arbitrators.
  - kuschku 10y ago
    That's then closer to CETAs solution, too. Classical ISDS trials have 1 determined by the suing company, 1 by the nation sued, and one both have to agree on.

kuschku 10y ago

> Go look at supreme court cases The supreme courts are democratically determined and justified. For ISDS courts, half of the judges are appointed by the company that is suing. For ICS courts, all the judges are appointed by the nations taking part. That’s why ICS is acceptable, but ISDS is not. > Democratically elected governments can act in ways just as abhorrent as any other entity Correct, but democratically elected governments are put under checks and balances to prevent them from doing so, foreign companies are not.

cperciva 10y ago
For ISDS courts, half of the judges are appointed by the company that is suing. The ISDS provision in NAFTA uses a panel of three arbitrators; one appointed by each of the nations involved, and one which is appointed either by consensus or from the third NAFTA nation if consensus cannot be reached. Investors don't get to appoint any arbitrators.
- kuschku 10y ago
  That's then closer to CETAs solution, too. Classical ISDS trials have 1 determined by the suing company, 1 by the nation sued, and one both have to agree on.