3 ms·
That's very nice language but the whole point is that commercial entities can challenge what is or isn't a legitimate policy to protect public health or the env
by lumberjack 12y ago
That's very nice language but the whole point is that commercial entities can challenge what is or isn't a legitimate policy to protect public health or the environment. They shouldn't be able to do that in the first place. They have no such right.
Not to mention that you make it sound like ISDS is a new thing that was marketed ineptly when in fact the notoriety stems from foreign businesses suing counties who tried to reduce trade in asbestos.
And besides, I'm not even sure whether it would be economically wise for a country to always threat foreign business and local business equally. Right now I'm sure many Europeans wish they had more local alternatives to US tech.
http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/20/3/749.full http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/20/3/749.full
- kretor 12y agoI cannot imagine a policy that, in order to protect public health or the environment, had to discriminate between companies with foreign investors, and those with domestic investors. Why shouldn't commercial entities be able to sue the government? When a government has agreed to an ISDS agreement (if they hadn't, the agreement wouldn't be in effect), it's only appropriate that they are held accountable to keep up on their promise. An ISDS agreement is simply about a government promising “We will not discriminate against foreigners (and also don't do a bunch of other terrible stuff, like expropriating foreigners), and if we still do, we will at least compensate them.“