Even The German Government Wants Corporate Sovereignty Out Of TAFTA/TTIP
from the well,-at-the-moment dept
As we've noted, if there's one aspect of TAFTA/TTIP that practically everyone agrees is a bad idea, it's corporate sovereignty. Even against that background, it's still slightly surprising to read in the well-regarded German newspaper Die Zeit that the German government too wants it out of TTIP (via @FSchweitzer, original in German):
The German federal government rejects special rights for corporations in the free trade agreement between the EU and the USA. "The federal government is doing all it can to ensure that it doesn't come to this," said the Secretary of State in the Federal Ministry of Economics, Brigitte Zypries, on Wednesday during question time in parliament. "We are currently in the consultation process and are committed to ensuring that the arbitration tribunals are not included in the agreement," said Ms Zypries.
The Secretary of State then went on to make a point many others have emphasized:
"The German federal government's view is that the U.S. offers investors from the EU sufficient legal protection in its national courts," said the SPD politician Zypries. Equally, U.S. investors in Germany have sufficient legal protection through German courts. "From the beginning, the federal government has examined critically whether such a provision should be included in the negotiations for a free trade agreement," Zypries said.
Corporate sovereignty measures were added to earlier bilateral agreements when the legal systems of the country receiving foreign investment raised issues about their independence or where there was a fear that local governments might expropriate property with impunity. Neither can seriously be considered a risk in the case of the EU and US, and so investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) is redundant, as the German government recognizes here.
If this really is Germany's view, it will have major consequences for the negotiations, since the European Commission won't be able to get TAFTA/TTIP accepted by the EU without Germany's full support. There remains some room for doubt, though, as the German Secretary of State also said:
arbitration tribunals of this kind should only be brought in as a last resort after exhausting all legal remedies brought in national courts.
If ISDS is excluded from TTIP, then that comment makes no sense, since there won't be the option to turn to supra-national tribunals after exhausting the legal process in national courts. So maybe Germany expects to be "persuaded" by concessions from the European Commission to change its mind at some point. But even if the German government is not totally abandoning the idea of corporate sovereignty, the fact that a senior politician is prepared to go on the record with the comments quoted above is significant. Germany's leaders obviously feel the need to distance themselves from ISDS, which is fast turning into a serious political liability.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: corporate sovereignty, germany, isds, tafta, ttip
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Maybe it's my cynicism speaking...
Claiming that corporate sovereignty* provisions are unneeded and shouldn't be in the 'trade agreement' on one hand, while stating that they should only be a 'last resort' sounds like nothing more than political posturing, something that sounds good in at first glance, but which leaves the door wide open for corporate sovereignty clauses to be slipped in anyway, 'just in case'.
*Originally I went with the shorter, 'ISDS', but then figured that that bit of PR/lying is bad enough when they do it themselves, no need to help. Such clauses deserve to be called as what they really are, legalese giving companies equal, and in some cases greater power, than national governments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe it's my cynicism speaking...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I can't remember the article that basically admitted it, but more members of law enforcement look for IP (Imaginary Property) infringement than they bother looking for kidnapped children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This corporate sovereignty stuff sounds like Shadowrun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These types of alternatives proliferate in business contracts, and are generally referred to by title as "Alternate Dispute Resolution" procedures (most typically arbitration and mediation).
A government may well be a sovereign (which gives it a significant leg up in any legal contest), but it cannot be denied that it can also be a party to private contracts.
My point is that such arrangements are not a priori bad and to be avoided at all costs because some business deals will never come to fruition if a private actor's downside risk far and away exceeds its upside benefit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And, of course, every single business deal MUST come to fruition? The whole point is not shackling the hands of citizens and governments to protect corporations. Let 'em evaluate risk, and accept or reject it, the old fashioned way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You could argue the countries voluntarily make the rules in the agreement, but as opposed to national legislation, it is hard to change and less jurisprudence in the international arena, makes the effects of the deal a lot more unpredictable.
Going through WIPO and WTO is one thing. Those are relatively transparent and open processes. Propping up non-transparent bilateral agreements with extra protection of the select few already consulted on the agreement beforehand is a different beast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a sad day...
(been watching way too many shows/movies about WW2 lately)
/jadedness /cynicism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Referendum required
If that is the case then such an agreement would require a referendum in my country, and probably in a lot of other EU countries as well.
Generally the EU council tries to avoid anything - unless absolutely unavoidable - which requires approval in each individual member country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]