Most countries are a signatories to the New York Convention (Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards). The country would not be in a position to decline payment. The claimant would go to another country that was also a signatory, and get a court order, based on the arbitral award, to seize assets of the country to expunge the debt.
The arbitration tribunal had its seat in Germany, by agreement with the parties. Thus, the Slovak government went to the courts in Germany when they sought to annul the award.
I'm fully on Veolia's side here. They had an agreement with the Alexandria government which allowed for increased payments if certain expenses, of which wages was one, increased.
The Government, quite correctly, raised the minimum wage. Veolia asked for increased payment as per the contract. The Government reneged, in breach of the contract. Veolia had not luck in the local courts, so they raised an ISDS dispute.
There have been exactly two ISDS tribunals related to tobacco products. One (Philip Morris v. Australia) was thrown out as an 'abuse of process' as PM artificially contrived to move their operations to take advantage of an investment agreement providing ISDS.
The other (Philip Morris v. Uruguay) was won by Uruguay with the tribunal ruling that the country did have the right to legislate for public health.
Further, tobacco disputes have been specifically disallowed under the TPP.
ISDS tribunals do not have the ability to over-ride laws. They do have the ability to impose penalties if the state breaches the agreement.
That's not quite right. What was signed was not a 'super final draft', it was the final Agreement. That was it.
The next step was for ratification, by legislation, as you indicate. But it was always a fantasy of those against TPA that without it the Congress would have the ability to 'fine tune' the Agreement. Yes, TPA instituted a straight up-or-down vote. But without TPA, if Congress approved it subject to even one change that would have the same result as voting 'no'. The Agreement could not, at that stage, be changed. Well not without going back to the negotiating table, scrapping the Agreement and starting again.
Which was made easier once the US pulled out by dropping 22 provisions that the US insisted on but the other countries opposed.
They weren't actually 'dropped', they were 'suspended'. They're still there, and could be resurrected to entice the US back in. So the CPTPP would look much like the old TPP.
However, negotiating from that position to get more loot for the US would be difficult indeed. Even though some nations have cowards at their head (Malcolm Turnbull comes to mind) who would grovel at the chance of the US being back in, the states do not have the appetite either for giving anything else away, or delaying for the period of time that further negotiations would take.
ISDS awards are enforceable because most countries, including the two involved in this dispute, are signatories to the New York Arbitration Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, New York, 10 June 1958. This means that the claimant could go to a court in another signatory country, and seek enforcement in that country. It would be granted. The claimant could then seize assets of the state in that country.
Consider what's happened in the past when the US was found to be in breach. We basically said, "No," and that was the end. It's actually one reason I'm amazed countries constantly want ISDS agreements with the United States.
Can you give an example of the US losing an ISDS dispute then saying 'no' to the payout?
Ne'er mind, I'll answer for you. You can't.
I could easily see the UK following the US approach and just dare the companies to follow through.
Can you give an example of the US 'daring a company to follow through'?
No, you can't. Can you explain why the US shit itself when the Keystone ISDS dispute was launched?
On the post: Top Court Throws Out Corporate Sovereignty For All Trade Deals Within EU; Those Involving Other Nations Likely To Suffer Same Fate
Re: Stick it in your ear
On the post: Top Court Throws Out Corporate Sovereignty For All Trade Deals Within EU; Those Involving Other Nations Likely To Suffer Same Fate
Re: Why Germany?
On the post: After Removing US From Negotiating Process, Now Trump Suddenly Wants US Back In TPP
Re: Re: Splitting hairs, much?
I'm fully on Veolia's side here. They had an agreement with the Alexandria government which allowed for increased payments if certain expenses, of which wages was one, increased.
The Government, quite correctly, raised the minimum wage. Veolia asked for increased payment as per the contract. The Government reneged, in breach of the contract. Veolia had not luck in the local courts, so they raised an ISDS dispute.
What, if anything, did Veolia do wrong?
On the post: As NAFTA Negotiations Finish Up, Hopefully The USTR Remembers That The Internet Has Been Good For Creators Too
Re: NAFTA is a sham
On the post: After Removing US From Negotiating Process, Now Trump Suddenly Wants US Back In TPP
The other (Philip Morris v. Uruguay) was won by Uruguay with the tribunal ruling that the country did have the right to legislate for public health.
Further, tobacco disputes have been specifically disallowed under the TPP.
ISDS tribunals do not have the ability to over-ride laws. They do have the ability to impose penalties if the state breaches the agreement.
On the post: After Removing US From Negotiating Process, Now Trump Suddenly Wants US Back In TPP
Re: why did Trump completely drop out of the negotiations?
ISDS (or 'corporate sovereignty' as you put it) has nothing to do with selling cigarettes to children.
On the post: After Removing US From Negotiating Process, Now Trump Suddenly Wants US Back In TPP
The next step was for ratification, by legislation, as you indicate. But it was always a fantasy of those against TPA that without it the Congress would have the ability to 'fine tune' the Agreement. Yes, TPA instituted a straight up-or-down vote. But without TPA, if Congress approved it subject to even one change that would have the same result as voting 'no'. The Agreement could not, at that stage, be changed. Well not without going back to the negotiating table, scrapping the Agreement and starting again.
On the post: After Removing US From Negotiating Process, Now Trump Suddenly Wants US Back In TPP
Re: Re: 22 Provisions
On the post: After Removing US From Negotiating Process, Now Trump Suddenly Wants US Back In TPP
22 Provisions
They weren't actually 'dropped', they were 'suspended'. They're still there, and could be resurrected to entice the US back in. So the CPTPP would look much like the old TPP.
However, negotiating from that position to get more loot for the US would be difficult indeed. Even though some nations have cowards at their head (Malcolm Turnbull comes to mind) who would grovel at the chance of the US being back in, the states do not have the appetite either for giving anything else away, or delaying for the period of time that further negotiations would take.
On the post: After Removing US From Negotiating Process, Now Trump Suddenly Wants US Back In TPP
Re: Assuming anyone would let him...
Robert Lighthizer would be the lead negotiator. It's part of his job.
https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2017/may/robert-e-lighthiz er-sworn-united-states
On the post: Top Court Throws Out Corporate Sovereignty For All Trade Deals Within EU; Those Involving Other Nations Likely To Suffer Same Fate
Re: Discovery? Subpoenas?
You seem to have confused arbitration tribunals with (especially) the American judicial system.
On the post: Top Court Throws Out Corporate Sovereignty For All Trade Deals Within EU; Those Involving Other Nations Likely To Suffer Same Fate
Re: Enforceability
On the post: Lawyers Gearing Up To Hit UK With Corporate Sovereignty Claims Totalling Billions Of Dollars Over Brexit
Re: Will the UK pay out?
Can you give an example of the US losing an ISDS dispute then saying 'no' to the payout?
Ne'er mind, I'll answer for you. You can't.
Can you give an example of the US 'daring a company to follow through'?
No, you can't. Can you explain why the US shit itself when the Keystone ISDS dispute was launched?
On the post: Top European Court To Consider If EU Countries Can Censor The Global Internet
Re: Re: Re: "can"?
On what basis do you figure a dispute could be raised under ISDS provisions?
On the post: Court Sends John Oliver, HBO Back To State Court To Fight Bob Murray
Re: Re: West Virginia =/= New York
Which case was that?
On the post: Aussie Catering Company Pokes Brewery Over Trademark Spat, Now Finds Itself Potentially Losing The Mark Entirely
Re: And another thing
They have a beer called "My Wife's Bitter"
On the post: JEFTA: The Latest Massive 'Trade' Deal You've Never Heard Of, Negotiated Behind Closed Doors, With Zero Public Scrutiny
Re: Re: Re: Re: So, remind me again, how exactly does ISDS work?
I'd hardly call that 'working as intended'. Lowen was certainly in the right, and had been treated disgracefully in national courts.
Further, one of the arbitrators was illegally and immorally 'leaned on' by the US Government.
On the post: JEFTA: The Latest Massive 'Trade' Deal You've Never Heard Of, Negotiated Behind Closed Doors, With Zero Public Scrutiny
Re: Re: So, remind me again, how exactly does ISDS work?
No they couldn't. There is no ISDS provision anywhere that allows a group to 'band together' to raise an investment dispute.
On the post: Trademark Censoring: Hungary Considering Banning Heineken Red Star Trademark Because Communism
Re: Re: I can see it
On the post: Canada-EU Trade Deal Ratified By European Union; Now Needs Approval By All Member States' National Parliaments
TPP signed at Atlanta?
Next >>