I see a fundamental problem with shifting the responsibility for uncertain profits (due to changes in laws) from corporate entities to national entities. I beli

I see a fundamental problem with shifting the responsibility for uncertain profits (due to changes in laws) from corporate entities to national entities. I believe that the uncertainties from investing in a certain country (ie. investing in nuclear reactors in Germany) should entirely be carried by the (private) investors themselves - and not by the governments. As a recent example: There is an ongoing dispute where a Swedish utility (Vattenfall) sued the German government for their plan to phase out nuclear energy. If governments are suddenly held accountable for (lost) profits of private companies we create a huge imbalance. Where the private entities reap the benefits of successful investments but the governments carry the burden if such investments fail (due to legislative action by the government). This is particularly worrisome because the higher tax revenues generated by a successful (or successfully suing) company might benefit an entirely different country. Thus this whole process essentially creates a race to the bottom in terms of consumer and environmental protection, as well as a huge barrier to the introduction of new regulations. Again, reducing regulations by itself doesn't have to be bad at all - frankly it's quite a good process. The only problem is that now the public gets excluded from the debate and instead an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) process - held at international arbitration courts - will decide which regulations are allowed and which are not. In conclusion this further emphasizes - or to put it more drastically - ultimately codifies the primacy of economics over democracies.