Corporate Sovereignty Finally Enters The Political Mainstream
from the yet-another-ratchet-clause dept
Techdirt has been writing about investor-state-dispute settlement (ISDS), aka corporate sovereignty, for more than three years now. During that time, we've published well over a hundred articles on the topic. Increasing numbers of people have become aware of the threat that ISDS represents to democracy because of the privileged access it grants companies to a parallel legal system. Now, it seems, it's beginning to enter the political mainstream around the world.
A couple of weeks ago, the leader of the UK's Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, promised to reject TAFTA/TTIP if he were in power, and to vote against it if he were in opposition. One reason for that, he said, was his concerns over:
the facility for corporations to sue national governments if regulations impinged on their profits.
The Labor Party in Australia has also started to make pronouncements about corporate sovereignty:
The opposition's trade spokeswoman, Penny Wong, said Labor would try to remove so-called investor state dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses from every trade agreement, and every bilateral investment treaty, that Australia has signed.
That comes at a time when the current Australian government is thinking about doing exactly the opposite:
It means Labor plans to review three major trade agreements concluded by the Abbott-Turnbull governments -- with China, Korea, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership -- that have ISDS provisions.The Turnbull government is considering adding a controversial provision to the Japan-Australia free-trade agreement that would allow foreign corporations to sue the Australian government.
Here's why it's taking that odd course of action:
The negotiations have been triggered by a relatively unknown clause in the Japan-Australia agreement, which was signed by the Abbott government in 2014.
In other words, this is yet another "ratchet" clause that ensures changes only ever move in one direction -- to the benefit of companies, and against the interests of the public. It's yet another reason never to include corporate sovereignty chapters in these so-called trade deals.
The clause states that if Australia's government signs any future trade deal with another country that includes an ISDS provision then the Japan-Australia deal would be subject to an automatic review "with a view to establishing" an ISDS provision in it.
The trigger for such a review was the China-Australia free-trade agreement, which came into force on 20 December 2015, because it included an ISDS provision.
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, isds, tpp, trade agreements, tribunals, ttip
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Australian Trade Deals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eerie...
You mean, like a Windows 10 Update becomes a "recommended patch" and is foisted upon users with a variety of tricks legally based on wishy-washy language in the previous "but they would never use it for $x" EULA? And if you close the dialog, it gets scheduled anyway?
"Oh don't worry about this clause, it's just reserving a tiny slot in your door for us to keep the tip of our crow bar dry. Standard provision, everybody does that now."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Eerie...Win 10
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is not a lot of difference between the Liberals/Nationals and the ALP
It is quite disappointing this time round, we even have various political pundits comparing the too sides as being very close to each other, irrespective of their party trappings.
Both are quite happy to create a police state, both are happy to line their political mates (and their own) pockets at the expense of the public. neither are actually interested in pursuing the programs needed to fix the infrastructure problems in Australia.
And before anyone says the Greens are an alternative, when one actually looks at the details of the Greens policies, all one sees is the utter destruction of Australia for the benefit of a small number of beneficiaries. They are no different form their larger compatriots. There doesn't appear to be any majors groups that are actually interested in the well-being of the citizens of this great nation.
Ah well, maybe better luck next time. Though if the pollies keep pushing at the good natured citizens, they might find that the good-natured citizen is no more and .....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is not a lot of difference between the Liberals/Nationals and the ALP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is not a lot of difference between the Liberals/Nationals and the ALP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Raise Corporate TAXES
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Behold my fancy tin-foil beanie!
It's the New World Order: no voice for the people.
If someone knows how I've gone conspiracy-theory mad and corporate sovereignty isn't exactly all that please explain it to me. Because I know it sounds crazy paranoid, yet it seems to be true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Behold my fancy tin-foil beanie!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]