3 ms·

re: ISDS, one concrete example of is the case of Australian tobacco plain packaging regulation versus the tobacco company Philip Morris [1] [2]. In 2011 Austra

by shoo 9y ago

re: ISDS, one concrete example of is the case of Australian tobacco plain packaging regulation versus the tobacco company Philip Morris [1] [2]. In 2011 Australia passed legislation that "requires health warnings to cover at least 75 per cent of the front of most tobacco packaging, 90 per cent of the back of cigarette packaging and 75 per cent of the back of most other tobacco product packaging" [3]. Philip Morris restructured and moved the headquarters of their Australia and Asia operations to Hong Kong. By doing this they could take advantage of an earlier 1993 trade agreement between Hong Kong and Australia, and launched an ISDS claim against the Australian government, claiming that the packaging regulation meant that their branding and trademarks had been confiscated. Say what you want about "free trade" agreements between states, it is pretty obvious that if these agreements can be potentially exploited as above then one of the outcomes of such agreements is the erosion of the rights of states and their citizens, and in increase in power and freedom to global capital. [1] https://www.ag.gov.au/tobaccoplainpackaging https://www.ag.gov.au/tobaccoplainpackaging [2] http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australia-versus-philip-morris-how-we-took-on-big-tobacco-and-won-20160517-gowwva.html http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/austra... [3] http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/tobacco-plain http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/conten...

evgen 9y ago
And Phillip Morris lost the case. You left out that particular part in your example. I wonder why that is? Is it because in this case, as in most such 'examples' of the horrors of ISDS, it turns out that the system did not prevent a nation from acting against a foreign corporate interest?
- Aaargh20318 9y ago
  > And Phillip Morris lost the case. You left out that particular part in your example. It's not about who lost or won, the problem is that there was a hearing at all. Why would there be a need for dispute settlement between companies and states ? There can be no dispute, the state dictates the law and the companies either comply or leave the country. ISDS is like giving kids the possibility of suing their parents over their bedtime. It implies the kids have some kind of say in the matter when they really don't.
  - friedman23 9y ago
    > There can be no dispute, the state dictates the law and the companies either comply or leave the country. Why even have free trade agreements if you can create laws that will destroy foreign business? ISDS is not so states can be subject to companies, it for states to follow agreements they sign. If the state values muh sovereignty so much they can simply reneg on the agreement and lose the benefit of free trade.
    - shoo 9y ago
      > Why even have free trade agreements if you can create laws that will destroy foreign business? if the business in question is only profitable because it pushes negative externalities onto other parties due to lack of regulation (e.g. tobacco companies, anyone on the supply/demand side of unregulated polluting industries) then it sounds like destroying such business models through regulation is a feature, not a bug.
    - Aaargh20318 9y ago
      > ISDS is not so states can be subject to companies, it for states to follow agreements they sign. Countries have their own legal systems for that, there is no need for ISDS.

by shoo 9y ago

evgen 9y ago

And Phillip Morris lost the case. You left out that particular part in your example. I wonder why that is? Is it because in this case, as in most such 'examples' of the horrors of ISDS, it turns out that the system did not prevent a nation from acting against a foreign corporate interest?

Aaargh20318 9y ago
> And Phillip Morris lost the case. You left out that particular part in your example. It's not about who lost or won, the problem is that there was a hearing at all. Why would there be a need for dispute settlement between companies and states ? There can be no dispute, the state dictates the law and the companies either comply or leave the country. ISDS is like giving kids the possibility of suing their parents over their bedtime. It implies the kids have some kind of say in the matter when they really don't.
- friedman23 9y ago
  > There can be no dispute, the state dictates the law and the companies either comply or leave the country. Why even have free trade agreements if you can create laws that will destroy foreign business? ISDS is not so states can be subject to companies, it for states to follow agreements they sign. If the state values muh sovereignty so much they can simply reneg on the agreement and lose the benefit of free trade.
  - shoo 9y ago
    > Why even have free trade agreements if you can create laws that will destroy foreign business? if the business in question is only profitable because it pushes negative externalities onto other parties due to lack of regulation (e.g. tobacco companies, anyone on the supply/demand side of unregulated polluting industries) then it sounds like destroying such business models through regulation is a feature, not a bug.
  - Aaargh20318 9y ago
    > ISDS is not so states can be subject to companies, it for states to follow agreements they sign. Countries have their own legal systems for that, there is no need for ISDS.