Top Arbitration Lawyer Says Corporate Sovereignty System Needs 'Complete Overhaul'
from the weapons-of-legal-destruction dept
A few months back we wrote about the free trade supporter Cato Institute arguing that corporate sovereignty provisions should be dropped from trade agreements, for a variety of cogent reasons. You wouldn't expect one of the top arbitration lawyers that actually uses the system to go quite so far, but this is pretty close:
A prominent international lawyer has launched a scathing critique of the international arbitration system that deals with investor-State disputes, calling for its "complete overhaul".
His ten points are all good, and well-worth reading, but the first is particularly important. It helps to explain why corporate sovereignty has become such a big issue recently -- and why some nations are starting to withdraw from such schemes:
...
Delivering the keynote address to the Eighth Annual Juris Investment Treaty Arbitration Conference held in Washington, D.C. in late March, George Kahale III -- who has been lead counsel in several of the world’s largest international arbitration cases, including a pending claim against Venezuela -- also listed the top ten of what he viewed were the most troubling aspects of investor-State arbitration.many governments are jumping on to the bandwagon of investment treaties -- which Kahale described as "weapons of legal destruction" -- often without scrutinising the serious implications and significance of the obligations contained therein.
It's the fact that investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) chapters are like a ticking trade time-bomb, just waiting to explode at some unknown future date, that makes them so dangerous. A country can't predict which apparently innocuous change to its laws or regulations will trigger a multi-million -- or even multi-billion -- dollar ISDS claim against it. Since awards must be met from the public purse, that means there could be a huge unexpected shortfall in the national budget. That lack of certainty -- and lack of financial control -- is no way to run a country, and is yet another reason why all nations, even the largest, would be wise to refuse to include corporate sovereignty provisions in their trade agreements.
Governments also often overlook the changing nature of investment treaties -- which are expanding in breadth and ambiguity -- in favour of investors with the corresponding effect that more and more types of State acts, gestures or Statements are becoming liable to challenge and compensation by foreign investors, said Kahale.
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: arbitration, corporate sovereignty, george kahale, investor state dispute settlement, isds, trade agreements
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
We ditched some monopolies? Tough luck that your patents are worth zilch. We increased environmental protection? Tough luck your fracking is now illegal. It wasn't a contract, it was you who decided you could make a business out of it, and now the people decided the law supporting it wasn't a good idea (perhaps even exactly because of your actions) and changed it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The right to rape and pillage anywhere is what they want, and they want the us armed forces to back them up. This has not worked out so well in the past and will continue to cause problems in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/09/11/canadian-firm-may-sue-for-4bn-if-romania-blocks-gold-mi ne/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The multinationals need only register their company outside the borders of the region they wish to exploit. Then enter that Free Exploitation region and operate with impunity, with no fear of violating that region's environmental, health, safety, or tax laws.
If regional authorities start to make a fuss. Simply sue that region's government under international Free Exploitation law, which trumps regional law, and make the citizens of that region repay the lawsuit damages in for form of taxation and austerity measures.
To put it another way, Free Exploitation Agreements are nothing more than a way to bypass a nation's regional laws. Laws that multinational corporations couldn't get changed though that region's domestic government. So the owners of multinational corporations created their own international corporate law tribunals, in the form of the WTO and USTR. Super rich CEOs then lobbied (bribed) regional policy makers to sign on to the Free Exploitation Treaties. Thus allowing international corporate law to trump a nation's regional laws.
What we end up with is Free Exploitation Agreements that allow multinational corporations to rape, pillage and plunder a nation's resources and economy, under the highest authority in the world. That authority is international corporate law, which is administered by international corporate trade tribunals, such as WTO and USTR.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]