Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

In reply to the discussion: Question about the TPP [View all]

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
1. Read it yourself - we don't need speculation.
Sun Jun 19, 2016, 12:26 PM
Jun 2016

Question

“Is it true that Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) would allow corporations to override laws, including environmental and public health regulations?

Answer

No. ISDS cannot change law in the United States or any other country. No government measure (federal, state, or local) can be blocked or reversed under the ISDS provisions or any other part of TPP. The United States would never negotiate away its right to regulate in the public interest, and we don’t ask other countries to do so either. This is true with regard to public health and safety, the financial sector, the environment, and any other area where governments seek to regulate.

Put simply, ISDS is a mechanism to promote good governance and the rule of law. ISDS protects basic rights — such as protection against discrimination and expropriation without compensation — akin to those enshrined in U.S. law and the Constitution. We already provide these protections at home to foreign and domestic investors under U.S. law. That’s why — although we are party to 51 agreements with ISDS — the U.S. has never lost an ISDS case. Our trade agreements ensure the same kinds of protections to U.S. businesses and investors operating abroad, where they face a heightened risk of discrimination and bias.

TPP includes a number of enhancements that strengthen the transparency and integrity of the dispute settlement process under ISDS. These include making hearings open to the public, allowing the public and public interest groups to file amicus curiae submissions, ensuring that all ISDS awards are subject to review by domestic courts or international review panels, ensuring that governments have a way to dismiss claims that are without merit on an expedited basis, and more.

In addition, after consultations with Members of Congress, the United States pushed for and secured additional safeguards that will establish a code of conduct for ISDS arbitrators and facilitate the dismissal of frivolous claims, among other first-of-their-kind provisions.

ISDS ensures that a wide range of American businesses — including small businesses — are protected against unfair discrimination when investing abroad. This will benefit the millions of American workers employed by these companies, as outside analysis shows that about half of ISDS cases are initiated by small- and medium-sized businesses, or individual investors.

https://medium.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership/frequently-asked-questions-on-the-trans-pacific-partnership-eddc8d87ac73#.w3c4wzdlh

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Question about the TPP [View all] floppyboo Jun 2016 OP
Read it yourself - we don't need speculation. yallerdawg Jun 2016 #1
Okay, that's one side of the arguement - but doesn't address the if x, then y part of my question floppyboo Jun 2016 #2
No secret panels in TPP. yallerdawg Jun 2016 #3
that's why I put 'secret' in quotes. Can we settle on 'independant'? floppyboo Jun 2016 #5
Why are you against AFL-CIO being able to sue foreign countries over labor violations? Recursion Jun 2016 #15
huh? was that question for me or yellowdog? floppyboo Jun 2016 #16
That was for you. Why do you oppose AFL-CIO being able to sue foreign governments when they violate Recursion Jun 2016 #18
I don't want that at all, and never said as much. floppyboo Jun 2016 #25
and seriously off-topic floppyboo Jun 2016 #17
Something isn't "off-topic" just because you have no positive way to address it. (nt) w4rma Jun 2016 #29
Uh no- its off topic because it doesn't address the OP and has nothing to do with anything in the OP floppyboo Jun 2016 #34
Here is an interesting take on what would need to change in the wording of the agreement floppyboo Jun 2016 #4
How does this relate to the specific guidelines in TPP? yallerdawg Jun 2016 #6
You wrote: floppyboo Jun 2016 #7
just to add - how will this prevent a analogous repeat of off-shore banking? floppyboo Jun 2016 #9
The title of this OP is very misleading. yallerdawg Jun 2016 #11
It is NOT speculation, any more than your platitudes are. floppyboo Jun 2016 #8
Facts are not "platitudes." yallerdawg Jun 2016 #10
no - YOU cited an article which mentions independant review panels floppyboo Jun 2016 #12
Post removed Post removed Jun 2016 #13
You're citing speculation from last year? yallerdawg Jun 2016 #19
Did the leaked text change much from the later release? brentspeak Jun 2016 #22
You know the full text is available, right? Recursion Jun 2016 #14
You are kidding, right? floppyboo Jun 2016 #20
"No time to read it... yallerdawg Jun 2016 #21
DU's 'Creative Speculation Group' yallerdawg Jun 2016 #23
Maybe you can ask Hillary what it is in the TTP's wording that she objects so strongly to floppyboo Jun 2016 #24
Her words. yallerdawg Jun 2016 #26
Exactly! So support the nominee and stop pretending everything is peachy. floppyboo Jun 2016 #27
I also support our Democratic President Barack Obama. yallerdawg Jun 2016 #30
Um, Hillary is not exactly a cheerleader for TTP floppyboo Jun 2016 #31
I am praying both are stopped and US pressure does not influence any swhisper1 Jun 2016 #35
These same "tribunals" have been in trade agreements since 1959, even trade Hoyt Jun 2016 #28
Wow - I can't believe 3 people on this thread have read the whole thing! floppyboo Jun 2016 #32
US companies use ISDS (Investor State Dispute Settlement) courts to pollute other countries. Eric J in MN Jun 2016 #33
such atrocities would happen daily if they pass swhisper1 Jun 2016 #36
Hasn't happened under NAFTA and hundreds of trade agreements with the same provisions since 1959. Hoyt Jun 2016 #38
they were not written by corporations, they were at the table, but were controlled in those days swhisper1 Jun 2016 #39
There's much more to the story. Canada could not ban MMT under its environmental laws, so they Hoyt Jun 2016 #37
interesting, thank you. It is these nuanced terms that allow the citizens to be screwed swhisper1 Jun 2016 #40
Almost every advanced country is party to TPP or the Trans-Atlantic negotiations. I believe Hoyt Jun 2016 #41
That was under Harper - our Bush. Nothing to be proud about. floppyboo Jun 2016 #42
Fine, Trudeau is free to change environmental laws, although it's really not needed Hoyt Jun 2016 #43
Why didn't Canadian legislators add an MMT ban to CEPA? Eric J in MN Jun 2016 #44
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Question about the TPP»Reply #1