10 ms·

I'm ok with trade deals. I'm not ok with private companies suing sovereign nations for compensation. [0] I'm not ok with secret tribunals that make those decis

I'm ok with trade deals. I'm not ok with private companies suing sovereign nations for compensation. [0] I'm not ok with secret tribunals that make those decisions. [1] I'm not ok with governments not making provisions for the workers that lost their jobs because Vietnamese shrimp flooded their country's market. [2] [0] https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/kill-the-dispute-settlement-language-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership/2015/02/25/ec7705a2-bd1e-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html?client=safariI https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/o... [1] http://billmoyers.com/story/shadow-courts-secret-tribunals-trade/ http://billmoyers.com/story/shadow-courts-secret-tribunals-t... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-08/more-shoes-and-shrimp-less-china-reliance-for-vietnam-in-tpp https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-08/more-shoe...

valas 10y ago
Many are upset about proposed dispute resolution regime ('suing'), but is it much different from how WTO works? AFAIK in WTO countries sue other countries on behalf of their corporations [0]. BTW, your first citation is an opinion piece by Elizabeth Warren who is far from impartial in this debate. [0] https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_by_country_e.htm https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_by_countr...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- chiaro 10y ago
  The WTO would function as the court of appeal for decisions made under the TPP's ISDS provisions. It would also be the body permitting sanctions (i.e. a return to pre-TPP tariff levels on trade with the offending country) in the event of non-cooperation.
- nicoburns 10y ago
  Possibly not that different, but I (and I think a lot of other people) aren't very happy with those rules either. And TPP undeniably expands the scope / makes it more likely these kind of judgements would be made.
chiaro 10y ago
0. What if the nation discriminates against that company, freezing funds or denying access to courts? This shit is important for increasing investor confidence in countries with nascent court systems and political systems used to corruption and nepotism. 1. Any decision that you think has resolved unfairly? 2. Agreed, but redistribution and retraining are domestic issues such as NAFTA-TAA.
- riffraff 10y ago
  > This shit is important for increasing investor confidence in countries with nascent court systems and political systems used to corruption and nepotism. while this is true there are already mechanisms built to counter this uncertainty, i.e. you can get insurance for operating in "dangerous" countries.
  - chiaro 10y ago
    Such insurances simply spread the risk of losses due to this kind of corruption among multiple entities. They don't provide incentives to the country to reduce the risk itself, which is the key differentiator.
    - akvadrako 10y ago
      Of course they do, because they increase the cost of doing business there. And it does it with a far lower cost to sovereignty.
      - chiaro 10y ago
        >Of course they do, because they increase the cost of doing business there. This misunderstands what incentives are at play for politicians with low accountability in developing countries. The cost of corruption is borne by these investors and domestic consumers, but the benefit of it is entirely concentrated in the political class. Therefore the opposite incentive exists, and the system becomes more resistant to any changes towards more inclusive institutions. >sovereignty. Meaningless buzzword. If a nation no longer favours the basket of benefits and obligations, it is entirely free to leave.
vilhelm_s 10y ago
In what sense is a ISDS a "secret" court? Their decision are published, right? (Your link [1] complains that "Could she protest on the courthouse steps? Arrange for a rally in a nearby town?", but the US supreme court also doesn't allow for protests on the courthouse steps, it doesn't seem like a crucial distinction.)
- turndown 10y ago
  The difference being the Supreme Court is one of the most vital cornerstones of our democracy; the ISDS was an idea thought up by companies for their own advantage.
  - Paradigma11 10y ago
    Pretty sure it was thought up by unstable countries to generate investment interests.
simonh 10y ago
> I'm not ok with private companies suing sovereign nations Do you think government agencies and leaders should be above the law in general, or only with respect to companies?
- parenthephobia 10y ago
  The actual problem is companies being above the law. The TPP would enable them to petition an unelected panel of lawyers for the right to ignore laws that inconvenience them, and to sue governments for damages that arise from those laws.
  - simonh 10y ago
    Or withdraw from the agreement. This is no different from any other treaty with an arbitration or oversight element, which itself is a law once ratified by a nations legislature. You agree not to do certain things and do others. One of these things in this case is not to pass certain other kinds of laws. So it's simple. Either don't pass those kinds of laws, or withdraw from the treaty. No loss of sovereignty involved.
- _0ffh 10y ago
  You seem to have got that backwards. What was meant is that it is not okay when companies are above the law, and sue whole nations for compensation when they are not allowed to run their business in violation of national regulations.
- angry_octet 10y ago
  The OP has given a brief description, which you have chosen to interpret so as to ignore the real issue. ISDR (investor state dispute resolution) is usually arranged as a private arbitration, with arbitrators who conspicuously do not meet conflict of interest or probity rules of even a hicksville kangaroo court. ISDR has the power to force judgements which are strongly not in the public interest, under the pretence of 'market interference'. The most obvious case is the tobacco lobby trying to prevent plain packaging legislation. This idea that trade deals can guarantee commercial justice for large multinationals in authoritarian countries, but we shouldn't expect any such improvement for citizens, is quite abhorrent.

valas 10y ago

Many are upset about proposed dispute resolution regime ('suing'), but is it much different from how WTO works? AFAIK in WTO countries sue other countries on behalf of their corporations [0]. BTW, your first citation is an opinion piece by Elizabeth Warren who is far from impartial in this debate. [0] https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_by_country_e.htm https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_by_countr...

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
chiaro 10y ago
The WTO would function as the court of appeal for decisions made under the TPP's ISDS provisions. It would also be the body permitting sanctions (i.e. a return to pre-TPP tariff levels on trade with the offending country) in the event of non-cooperation.
nicoburns 10y ago
Possibly not that different, but I (and I think a lot of other people) aren't very happy with those rules either. And TPP undeniably expands the scope / makes it more likely these kind of judgements would be made.

chiaro 10y ago

0. What if the nation discriminates against that company, freezing funds or denying access to courts? This shit is important for increasing investor confidence in countries with nascent court systems and political systems used to corruption and nepotism. 1. Any decision that you think has resolved unfairly? 2. Agreed, but redistribution and retraining are domestic issues such as NAFTA-TAA.

riffraff 10y ago
> This shit is important for increasing investor confidence in countries with nascent court systems and political systems used to corruption and nepotism. while this is true there are already mechanisms built to counter this uncertainty, i.e. you can get insurance for operating in "dangerous" countries.
- chiaro 10y ago
  Such insurances simply spread the risk of losses due to this kind of corruption among multiple entities. They don't provide incentives to the country to reduce the risk itself, which is the key differentiator.
  - akvadrako 10y ago
    Of course they do, because they increase the cost of doing business there. And it does it with a far lower cost to sovereignty.
    - chiaro 10y ago
      >Of course they do, because they increase the cost of doing business there. This misunderstands what incentives are at play for politicians with low accountability in developing countries. The cost of corruption is borne by these investors and domestic consumers, but the benefit of it is entirely concentrated in the political class. Therefore the opposite incentive exists, and the system becomes more resistant to any changes towards more inclusive institutions. >sovereignty. Meaningless buzzword. If a nation no longer favours the basket of benefits and obligations, it is entirely free to leave.

vilhelm_s 10y ago

In what sense is a ISDS a "secret" court? Their decision are published, right? (Your link [1] complains that "Could she protest on the courthouse steps? Arrange for a rally in a nearby town?", but the US supreme court also doesn't allow for protests on the courthouse steps, it doesn't seem like a crucial distinction.)

turndown 10y ago
The difference being the Supreme Court is one of the most vital cornerstones of our democracy; the ISDS was an idea thought up by companies for their own advantage.
- Paradigma11 10y ago
  Pretty sure it was thought up by unstable countries to generate investment interests.

simonh 10y ago

> I'm not ok with private companies suing sovereign nations Do you think government agencies and leaders should be above the law in general, or only with respect to companies?

parenthephobia 10y ago
The actual problem is companies being above the law. The TPP would enable them to petition an unelected panel of lawyers for the right to ignore laws that inconvenience them, and to sue governments for damages that arise from those laws.
- simonh 10y ago
  Or withdraw from the agreement. This is no different from any other treaty with an arbitration or oversight element, which itself is a law once ratified by a nations legislature. You agree not to do certain things and do others. One of these things in this case is not to pass certain other kinds of laws. So it's simple. Either don't pass those kinds of laws, or withdraw from the treaty. No loss of sovereignty involved.
_0ffh 10y ago
You seem to have got that backwards. What was meant is that it is not okay when companies are above the law, and sue whole nations for compensation when they are not allowed to run their business in violation of national regulations.
angry_octet 10y ago
The OP has given a brief description, which you have chosen to interpret so as to ignore the real issue. ISDR (investor state dispute resolution) is usually arranged as a private arbitration, with arbitrators who conspicuously do not meet conflict of interest or probity rules of even a hicksville kangaroo court. ISDR has the power to force judgements which are strongly not in the public interest, under the pretence of 'market interference'. The most obvious case is the tobacco lobby trying to prevent plain packaging legislation. This idea that trade deals can guarantee commercial justice for large multinationals in authoritarian countries, but we shouldn't expect any such improvement for citizens, is quite abhorrent.