US Says 'No' To Corporate Sovereignty Reform; Hungary Says 'No' To Corporate Sovereignty
from the clash-of-civilizations dept
Last week we wrote about an attempt by the EU's Trade Commissioner, Cecilia Malmström, to "save" the corporate sovereignty chapter in TAFTA/TTIP as more people wake up to its dangers, and resist its inclusion. Along with tinkering at the edges, her proposal for reform did have one more substantive idea: to create "a permanent multilateral investment court."
The intention was presumably to address the key objections to investment-state dispute settlement (ISDS) tribunals -- that they are secret, unpredictable and have no conflict of interest rules or appeals process -- by importing some of the key strengths of traditional courts, which are open and impartial, follow precedent and allow appeals.
Of course, that approach begs the question why new courts are needed at all, when national courts already exist. But it seems that we won't be having a debate on that particular issue, since the US has lost no time pouring cold water on the whole idea, as AFP reports:
A senior US official rejected Monday an EU proposal to create an international investment court that was aimed at resolving one of the disputes holding up their free trade deal.
The comments by US Undersecretary for International Trade at the Commerce Department, Stefan Selig, include the following claim:
"The criticisms that they undermine governments' right to regulate, I think are just misguided," Selig said during a visit to Paris when asked about Malmstroem's proposals.
As I wrote last year, far from being "misguided," the past experience with corporate sovereignty shows that those criticisms are entirely justified. Selig then goes on to say:
The United States believes the ISDS mechanism "increases the security of companies willing to make investments and arguably makes that country, whether it's the United States or any country in Europe, a more attractive investment destination."
But again, that assertion is belied by the facts. According to the European Commission's recently-updated figures, in 2013, the total US investment in the EU was €1.65 trillion; the EU investment in the US was even higher -- €1.69 trillion. The size of these numbers is the best indication that companies are more than happy to send money across the Atlantic, even without ISDS.
The US refusal even to consider a major reform of corporate sovereignty poses big problems for the EU negotiators. It's clear that the strategy was to try to win over critics of ISDS by promising that its flaws -- admitted even by the European Commission -- would be fixed through the creation of a new court. With that option no longer on the table, it looks increasingly like TTIP's ISDS will simply involve some minor tweaks.
However, last week another country was making its position on corporate sovereignty clear, reported here by the Budapest Business Journal:
Hungary is against the inclusion of the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) clause in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) free trade agreement between the United States and the European Union, [Hungary's] Foreign Ministry state secretary István Mikola said yesterday following a convention of foreign trade ministers in Brussels.
Since TAFTA/TTIP is what is known as a "mixed agreement," both the EU and all the member states must ratify it before it comes into force. If Hungary refuses to do that on the grounds that it contains ISDS, it's possible the whole deal would simply collapse (it's not clear what would happen in practice, because this is largely uncharted territory). Moreover, Hungary is not the only country that is likely to vote down TTIP if it includes ISDS:
Mikola said that Hungary's views on the ISDS clause are shared by 6-7 other EU member states, but he did not name those states.
That's further evidence that the central stumbling block for TTIP is corporate sovereignty. Indeed, it seems that ISDS is fast becoming as toxic as ACTA three years ago, when politicians rushed to dissociate themselves from the idea before rejecting it completely.
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, hungary, isds, tafta, ttip, us
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
EU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: EU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well here's what I'd try
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: well here's what I'd try
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here is the U.S. position in a nutshell:
And now Stefan Selig essentially added "we don't need to sugarcoat it. It goes down anyway".
The problem with that approach is not that the EU officials, particularly the EU Commission, aren't entirely willing to lap it up.
The problem is that they'll look bad and ridiculous doing so, and the EU has nowhere near the absolute stranglehold over its constituting states and populaces that the corrupt Washingtonacracy has.
So this U.S. "jump!" command comes at a cost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting. I'm curious to how long the word "dispute" was changed from "issue".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doing good for the wrong reason
My bet is they do it because of their anti-corporation standing and russian affiliation rather than the danger for the citizens it pose, but at least we have some good out of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong reason?
In the U.S., everything is done to make it easier for money to buy power and screw people. That's capitalism. And it's what buys stuff like ISDS in the first place.
So why are those kinds of reason "right"? "anti-corporation standing" and "Russian affiliation" are essentially leanings that have ultimately a base in the interests of people, filtered through some ideological/national framework.
Capitalism have a bas in the interests of money and rich people and existing power, filtered through some ideological/national framework. Why is the latter a "right reason", and the former a "wrong reason"?
Because there is something inherently better with the U.S.A. rather than Russia?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong reason?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wrong reason?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wrong reason?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong reason?
I agree. But very few folks will agree on the appropriate role of the state. I've argued for limited government in the context of net neutrality and gotten fairly well shouted down in this forum, so it seems most tech dirt posters believe that the government should regulate commerce as to protect us from corporate greed. I know just as many folks that would argue that government regulations are choking our economy. Everybody wants laws passed that protect their position.
Any suggestions as to how we find folks to vote for that support rolling back the role of government in our everyday life without bias one way or the other?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong reason?
Or is it part of a system of law enforcement?
Supposedly, laws are put in place for the benefit of society - but as we all know this is a very cruel joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong reason?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wrong reason?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wrong reason?
We need to sit down and discuss what those options actually are instead of riding the left-right see-saw and wondering why nothing seems to change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong reason?
What's wrong? As I told you: the reason.
The right reason is "because we won't let corporations fuck the people."
The main difference can be illustrated by another action of the govt, done again for advantages and in spite of corporations: all big stores must close on sunday. We did not want it. we do not profit from it. But then, no one asked "the people" of what they think of it.
Also, I did not bring in capitalism vs communism (?? there is no communism beside small tribes). I don't think either works correctly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong reason?
It's not capitalism you twit... its corruption. There are a lot of non-capitalistic economies that have done, did, and are doing just exactly what you are accusing capitalism of.
People like to blame objects and nouns for their problems. Like, guns kill people, and religion is the cause for humanities woes. Human will corrupt anything, and you are living proof of that corruption because you are corrupting public opinion of an idea.
Marxism, Socialism, Capitalism, whatever-ism. They all have their merits, it is the evil ignorant turds that get in charge and fail each and every time to recognized what the true problem is. Humans! If you were in power I bet you would be the very thing you espouse your hate for because you are just that ignorant!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wrong reason?
That does not mean that you can't let greed blow up other political/economical systems. But the fallout tends not to be global scale like that of the large human-driven catastrophes fed by monetary interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wrong reason?
Sorry, but no. Capitalism (which is not a form of government) leads to far less corruption than communist/fascist governments. As for "large human-driven catastrophes" how many people did Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and the Khmer Rouge kill?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong reason?
I have never seen even the tiniest hint that this is a true statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong reason?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong reason?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong reason?
Just look at the index of the most corrupt countries, North Korea tops the list, or the countries most likely to win business abroad by paying bribes (Russia and China top that list).
The US isn't actually that corrupt as compared to the rest of the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong reason?
Yes, there are many nations that are more corrupt than the US in some ways, but it's not true to say the US isn't very corrupt. The primary difference is one of style: in the US, we've institutionalized and legalized the corruption. In a sense, that's an even greater level corruption than nations that do it with less finesse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong reason?
"We are not corrupt, because the first thing we did is we made our corrupted officials legalize further corruption"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also, I'd take the special 301 badge of honor any time instead of DemocracyTM USA style.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I were to gamble on starting a small business in the US and I fail, nobody should bail me out or repeal any law that prevented me from making a profit. Why then should a multinational corporation be protected if they take a risk on opening a branch in Europe or China?
Under ISDS, what would stop China from deciding to open sweatshops here in America and suing our government over minimum wage, child and fair labor laws, and minimum safety standards? These all interfere with Chinese factories ability to make a profit above all else. Our health, safety, and quality of life would suffer and we would be powerless to stop it as our votes would mean nothing. Want the China smog clouds to spread over the continental US? ISDS would likely eliminate all the environmental controls that prevent it.
Libertarianism is a fine ideal, but a working government is meant to be a tool of the people to regulate the bad behaviors of the few for the benefit of all society. A balance between regulation and freedom is what is needed, not a shift to either extreme.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Such protection is also unnecessary. If a nation behaves in a way that displeases (or even cheats!) outside investors, then there will be fewer outside investors. If the nation wants to encourage outside investment, then it will alter its policies to do that.
Either way, the choice remains exactly where it should be: with the nations themselves. ISDS inverts that situation and deprives nations of their right to self-rule.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]