Tobacco Carve-Out From ISDS Starts To Spread: Another Nail In The Coffin Of Corporate Sovereignty
from the crack-in-the-dam dept
One of the last pieces of horse-trading that went on in order to conclude the TPP deal involved corporate sovereignty, aka investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), and tobacco. As we reported a year ago, a "carve-out" for tobacco was agreed, which was designed to assuage fears that tobacco companies would use TPP's ISDS mechanism to challenge health measures like plain packs -- something that Philip Morris attempted against both Australia and Uruguay. Now, it looks like the idea is spreading, as Simon Lester points out on the International Economic Law and Policy Blog:
Whether or not the TPP ever gets ratified, the idea for a tobacco carveout seems to have taken hold. Via Tania Voon on twitter, I see that Australia and Singapore have agreed to amend their FTA to include a tobacco carveout.
The wording itself, inserted into the section on corporate sovereignty, is pretty simple (pdf):
Section B: Investor-State Dispute Settlement
It's worth noting that this is not just another carve-out, but a retrospective one, which creates an interesting precedent that might be followed elsewhere. After all, once the principle that tobacco companies should not be allowed to use ISDS to interfere with health programs is established, there's no reason not to apply it more widely, to both future and existing trade and investment deals.
ARTICLE 22
Tobacco Control Measures
No claim may be brought under this Section in respect of a tobacco control measure of a Party
More generally, the appearance of this carve-out for tobacco raises a question Mike asked a year ago: if corporate sovereignty is such a bad idea for this industry, why not for others that can cause harm -- like the extractive industries, for example? And once people start asking these kinds of questions, it's not long before they realize that putting companies above national laws, and letting them sue governments in supranational tribunals, makes no sense at all for any sector. Calls to drop the entire ISDS system have been growing for a while; the latest move by Australia and Singapore is likely to make them louder.
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: carve-outs, corporate sovereignty, isds, tobacco, trade deals
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Let's pull out a Simpsons example
Because they will.
And other enterprisers will develop other tobacco-like products that we cannot trust end-consumers to use responsibly, and they will have the advantages of corporate sovereignty to scuttle national health measures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In fact we have the next tobacco already.
Specifically the junk food industry.
Who are doing a splendid job of killing people and suppressing public service responses and regulation.
And are marketing primarily to children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In fact we have the next tobacco already.
We have the right to flavour our food with cyanide, damn it! /sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In fact we have the next tobacco already.
https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/cyanide/basics/facts.asp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tobacco Carve-out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tobacco Carve-out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tobacco Carve-out
Why not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One less cup...
The fact remains that corporate sovereignty, the idea that corporations should have equal if not more power than governments over deciding what laws and/or regulations are 'fair' and 'acceptable' should be seen and treated as utterly toxic, and grounds to reject out of hand any agreement that it's in.
Adding in an 'exception' for tobacco is an improvement to be sure, especially considering past history of the industry, but it's still a gilded turd, just slightly more polished now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One less cup...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporations run government, this agreement just makes it official
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The ISDS is already ONLY useful against protectionist measures like bidding rules in state contracts or patent laws.
ISDS SHOULD NOT allow a corporation to sue a state for mandating better health & safety protocols.
You know things like less fat, less sugar, smoke detectors or safer building codes.
Which is exactly what the ISDS is being used for in a majority of cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No it's not.
"State conduct most frequently challenged by investors in 2015 included legislative reforms in the renewable energy sector, alleged direct expropriations of investments, alleged discriminatory treatment, and revocation or denial of licences or permits."
Source: ‘Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Review of Developments in 2015’ (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) 2016)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
E.g. the recent tax changes that have been occurring around the world to prevent companies avoiding taxes by offshoring profits could fall under this category.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No it's not. Expropriation is a well understood concept in International Law.
> E.g. the recent tax changes that have been occurring around the world to prevent companies avoiding taxes by offshoring profits could fall under this category.
No they couldn't. Taxation is not expropriation, period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]