Australian Case Shows Why Corporate Sovereignty Isn't Needed In TPP -- Or In Any Trade Agreement
from the running-out-of-arguments dept
One of central claims made by supporters of corporate sovereignty chapters in trade deals is that companies "need" this ability to sue the government in special tribunals. The argument is that if the extra-judicial investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) framework is not available to a company, it will be defenseless when confronted with a bullying government. A new case in Australia shows why that's not true. A column in The Sydney Morning Herald provides the background, which concerns a US company called Nucoal:
In 2013, the NSW [New South Wales] Independent Commission against Corruption found that there had been corrupt conduct relating to the granting of mining licences to Nucoal and other mining companies and the NSW government cancelled the licences.
Naturally, Nucoal unleashed its lawyers:
[Nucoal] demanded compensation of more than $900 million in Australia's High Court, claiming the decision to cancel its licence without compensation was unconstitutional and had reduced the value of the company. The High Court found in April 2015 that under Australian law Nucoal was not entitled to compensation.
Now Nucoal had a problem. Normally, a company in this situation would invoke the corporate sovereignty chapter in a relevant trade deal, and move the case to secret ISDS tribunals, which were likely to be more favorable to its cause than the independent national courts. But with unusual foresight, Australia refused to accept ISDS in the 2004 AUSFTA trade agreement between the US and Australia -- which makes its decision to acquiesce to ISDS in TPP doubly foolish. Despite what fans of corporate sovereignty claim, Nucoal still has another option at this point:
Nucoal is pressuring the US government to put a case to the Australian government that the denial of compensation has violated the general investment terms of the [AUSFTA] agreement. This could result in a formal complaint from the US government demanding trade sanctions against the Australian government.
That is, unable to avail itself of the investor-state dispute mechanism, Nucoal now wants to take advantage of the state-state dispute settlement process (pdf) whereby the US government formally complains to the other government concerned. Now, whether the US government should really be taking up a case involving corruption is another question. The key point is that it is not absolutely necessary to include corporate sovereignty provisions in a trade deal to protect companies, because there is always the state-to-state mechanism that can be invoked if necessary.
Last week The Australian reported that the CEO of the US Chamber of Commerce in Australia has announced that the US government will raise the issue in a closed-door review of the AUSFTA to be held in May.
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: australia, corporate sovereignty, courts, disputes, isds, tpp, trade
Companies: nucoal
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I know this song...
Do this daily, and before long you'll never make the mistake again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misleading story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misleading story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misleading story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Misleading story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Misleading story
Nope. Caveat emptor. Do your due diligence. Buy insurance on the deal if you want. But you buy the asset, you buy its problems.
But we even have a valid process that can cleanse assets when it's truly needed by the economic system. It's above board - when you buy assets out of receivership from some bankruptcy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do this daily, and before long you'll never make the mistake again."
Not only is it not this but it not a whole lot more.
"These are not the droids you're looking for."
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The difference
In a secret ISDS however, the company has the power to bully a 'sovereign' state all by itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The difference
Thankfully, NuCoal hasn't gone the route of Philip Morris...yet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Kind of like buying stolen property. If discovered, it still goes back to the rightful owner, even if the buyer didn't know it was stolen. Nucoal wants to keep it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No it can't. Only if such a mechanism is specified in a relevant treaty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The skies are falling....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give them their compensation
At the moment they're only forfeiting their poorly-researched investment with no formal charge on record (and therefore no damage to their reputation or future prospects).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
State-state
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: State-state
The same applies even more so for the so-called little people. To get a fair trial, the government has to like you. You can get totally railroaded if the government doesn't like you. So maybe *all* trials should be held in international courts. If state and federal courts aren't good enough for issues impacting corporate profits, how could they possibly be good enough to decide issues concerning people's lives?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: State-state
Simple. Corporate profits are more important than people's lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]