Canadian trade policy expert calls TPP a "threat to democracy"

[n2doc]

Gus Van Harten is a law professor at York University's Osgoode Hall and a well-respected expert on trade law; he's published a damning report on the Trans Pacific Partnership deal.

Van Harten focuses on the TPP's "Investor State Dispute Settlement" (ISDS, previously) provisions, which allow corporations to sue governments in closed, secret proceedings to repeal environmental, labor and safety regulations that undermine their expected profits.

Defenders of ISDSes say that they help the "little guy" who might be clobbered by foreign governments with regulations that are just disguised protectionism. But Van Harten's look at the track-record of actual ISDS proceedings paints a very different picture. The primary users of ISDSes are giant corporations (>$1B/year in turnover) or the super rich (>$100M net worth), and they prevail 71% of the time. By contrast, small companies that try to use ISDSes only succeed 42% of the time. ISDSes aren't about leveling the playing field: they're about tilting it in the favour of the rich and powerful.

This leads Van Harten to call TPP a "threat to democracy and to regulation."



more

http://boingboing.net/2016/06/16/canadian-trade-policy-expert-c.html

[djean111]

1. A threat? Giving worldwide corporations power over sovereign countries' and states' and

municipalities' right to enact laws - that is the death of Democracy. Killed in a secret corporate court. How fitting.

Sure not voting for or supporting any politician who has anything to do with these "trade" agreements. Fast Track, the TPP, TTIP, whatever. Or SHILLED for them. Heh, wonder if, eventually, corporations will decide that voting for/installing a new regime ANYWHERE threatens their profits, and interferes with bribery and/or bullets and/or election tampering....oh, wait. We do that now, don't we?

[pampango]

2. Trade dispute aribitration did not exist before FDR put it in the ITO.

How else do countries resolve trade disputes if not by mutually acceptable arbitration?

From the White House:

Can corporations use ISDS to initiate a dispute settlement proceeding solely because they lost profits?

No. Our investment rules do not guarantee firms a right to future profits or to expected investment outcomes. Rather, they only provide protections for a limited and clearly specified set of rights. For instance, if a country decides to take away the property of a business without any compensation, that business can seek compensation through a neutral arbitration. Like U.S. law, the goal of impartial arbitration is to promote fairness, not to protect profit.

Won’t ISDS give corporations the right to challenge our laws, or weaken our labor and environmental standards?

No. ISDS arbitration is extremely limited in its scope. It cannot make any country to change its laws, and the protections it affords investors are comparable to protections already available to U.S. and foreign investors alike under U.S. law and practice. By contrast, domestic courts are much more powerful. They can order compensation, award punitive damages, or strike down whole laws. ISDS does nothing that takes away the sovereign ability of governments impose any measure they wish to protect labor rights, the environment, or other issues of public welfare.

But what about the cost? Have American taxpayers been required to pay millions or billions of dollars in damages because of an ISDS decision?

No. ISDS is part of 51 international agreements that the U.S. currently has in place with 54 countries. In the three decades that the U.S. has had agreements for investment arbitration, only 13 cases have been brought to conclusion and the U.S. has won every single case.

How does the ISDS process ensure that arbitration is unbiased?

Governments play a central role in determining the composition of who handles arbitration. In the case of the United States, we have won 100 percent of cases against us, suggesting our confidence in the process is not misplaced. In addition to the role governments play in selecting arbitrators, they can also take steps to disqualify arbitrators who do not meet standards of impartiality and independence. There is a Code of Conduct for arbitrators as well as impartiality provisions governing arbitration.

https://archive.is/8vuIX#selection-2231.0-2118.55

[90-percent]

3. Anticipated future corporate profits trumps

your puny little countries pathetic little laws.

The Oligarch's running the planet will not be happy until they can charge us for the air we breath.

We are all corporate serfs now.

Nice to see our President sell this on Jimmy Fallon's show recently. Looks like Comcast is down with the TPP, too.

-90% Jimmy