What would Teddy Roosevelt have thought of "investor-state dispute" tribunals?

[Faryn Balyncd]

34. Continuing to attack a straw man does not address the exponentially increasing problems presented by

... the Pandora's box of corporate goodies into which ISDS's have evolved.

The straw man you continue to attack is the concept of absolute novelty, which you claim that some posters "seem to believe".

Yet the substantial, and growing, damage that ISDS's are doing to the public interest, and the threat posed to many diverse non-trade areas of law, lies not in an imaginary absolute novelty, but in the reality of the ISDS's that have evolved as a result of corporate influence, generally exerted out of public view.

This reality has resulted in dramatically increased ISDS lawsuits and pro-corporate awards under NAFTA, which have been extensively documented.

The wide scope of the TPP, extending far beyond the lowering of actual trade barriers such as tariffs and duties, and now primarily involving such issues as extension of copyrights and patents, expands the scope of the threads posed by this Pandora's Box of corporate goodies under the TPP.




But rather than addressing these issues, which have been clearly articulated by many, including Robert Reich, Jim Hightower, and even free trade advocates such as Paul Krugman (who, despite his advocacy of free trade, points out that the TPP does not primarily address trade issues, but rather extending monopoly rights through patent and copyright charges, such that he would be relieved if it is not adopted), you continue to attack the straw man of absolute novelty which you claim some posters "seem to believe".