ISDS courts allow multinational corporations—and only multinational corporations—to sue a foreign government in a court not governed by that country’s laws for essentially not letting them make enough money
No, ISDS tribunals (they're not courts) allow foreign investors to raise disputes, be they individuals or multinational corporations.
Yet, in the real world, who is more likely to take advantage of (or abuse) this system? Individual investors who have been wronged, or multinational corporations unhappy that a country's attempt to protect its citizens interferes with profits?
My point was that ISDS is not limited to corporations. It's also available to foreign investors. Individuals do from time to time raise ISDS claims.
Here is but on dictionary definition of kangaroo court:
an unofficial court held by a group of people in order to try someone regarded, especially without good evidence, as guilty of a crime or misdemeanour.
An ISDS tribunal is not a court; it's not unofficial; it doesn't try anyone for a crime or misdemeanour; it depends on good evidence.
... courts by and large have condemned as unlawful?
Huh? The CJEU has described one type of ISDS dispute as incompatible with EU law. The doesn't affect NAFT, for example, or the potential Uber case at all.
You want me to polish up on recent legal precedent? I don't particularly feel the need, but why don't you spell out for me what recent legal precedent has passed me by?
Let me know when US law decides to allow a foreign national to call in a foreign court to arbitrate a US dispute and then we'll talk.
Let's fix the terminology first. An ISDS tribunal is not a "foreign court". But US law right now allows a foreign investor to initiate a dispute against the United States and initiate an arbitration tribunal.
You seem to think that ISDS is available only to corporations, and not to individuals.
That is not the case. It is available, in certain circumstances (existence of a treaty, qualified investor and investment), to investors, be they individuals or corporations.
Thank you for the plug for my paper. Your mention will help my author rankings, Note, it wasn't a thesis, it was a peer-reviewed Law Review article. But to better help my rankings, we should cite it in full. Welch C, ‘Fact or Folklore? Mythbusting Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)’ (2016) 27 International Company and Commercial Law Review 411.
The CJEU appears to disagree with you on that analysis
Just to be clear, are you referring to the Achmea decision? If you would clear that up, I'll respond.
ISDS ensures that if a corporation is impacted by a change in government policy then the corporation can take their complaint to a tribunal completely outside of the judicial administration of the affected country.
No it doesn't. ISDS is to address complaints that a state has breached the treaty. But the rest of your sentence is correct. That is how it's meant to work.
I'll just take the first one. Selling cigarettes is a "right" as it's legal in most countries.
But the two ISDS tobacco cases failed. In one, that with Australia, the tribunal dismissed Philip Morris' corporate shenanigans trying to re-position itself as a subsidiary of a different entity in another country, purely to take advantage of a particular investment agreement.
In the other the tribunal determined that Uruguay had the right to legislate on tobacco packaging for the sake of the health of its citizens. Philip Morris lost.
Where appropriate, trade and investment agreements are written in a variety of languages. The TPP, for example, was simultaneously published in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Japanese and French.
Oh no, you used Veolia as an example. Veolia did not complain about Alexandria raising the minimum wage, and they did not raise a dispute because of it. This was an unusual case in that Veolia had a contract with Alexandria that stating that should certain expenses go up, wages being one of a number, payments to Veolia would go up commensurably. Alexandria reneged on their contract, Veolia was unsuccessful in seeking redress in domestic courts, and raised an ISDS dispute.
Broken contract - tell me why they should not dispute it?
You forgot to mention that Veolia lost the dispute.
The average government official doesn't even get to see the text because the agreement is negotiated by lobbyists in secret
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
18 U.S.C. § 2381
Note the use of the word "enemy". Columbia is not an enemy of the United States. Even Iran is not an enemy of the United States.
If a business can reserve the right to refuse service to anyone they want, then a government can surely reserve the right to refuse to allow any business they want for any or no reason at all to operate inside their borders.
It absolutely can.
Unless, of course, it has signed a treaty that says it will not.
Basically they'll have defaulted to the agreement they signed with the US. Which in turn invites the World Trade Organization to penalize Columbia.
The WTO has nothing at all to do with these cases.
The ISDS is a terrifying paragraph which allows any given corporate entity to override the law of the nation it's acting in.
No it doesn't.
Or bluntly put, since corporations are legally speaking, individuals, it gives a foreign individual a veto right in the the legislative process of a sovereign, democratic nation.
No it doesn't.
Any nation willing to sign themselves onto a "trade agreement" such as that needs to hold a treason trial for the statesmen signing it.
You need to check what "treason" actually means. Clearly it does not mean what you think it does.
The ISDS is the international tribunal that corporations go to,
Not exactly. ISDS ("Investor-State Dispute Settlement") is the name of the process. Tribunals can be convened under a number of different rule systems, or even none, depending on the agreement between the parties.
therefore if the country chooses to ignore it there really isn't any where else to go unless the countries own court system recognises that the ISDS process is valid.
Yes, there is. The enforcement mechanism is well defined by the New York Convention.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And this:
https://www.csmonitor.com/1994/0209/09081.html
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, the ISDS mechanism provides one system of arbitration for investors.
Investors can raise ISDS disputes
No, ISDS tribunals (they're not courts) allow foreign investors to raise disputes, be they individuals or multinational corporations.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My point was that ISDS is not limited to corporations. It's also available to foreign investors. Individuals do from time to time raise ISDS claims.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda like a Bill of Rights
Here is but on dictionary definition of kangaroo court:
An ISDS tribunal is not a court; it's not unofficial; it doesn't try anyone for a crime or misdemeanour; it depends on good evidence.
Huh? The CJEU has described one type of ISDS dispute as incompatible with EU law. The doesn't affect NAFT, for example, or the potential Uber case at all.
You want me to polish up on recent legal precedent? I don't particularly feel the need, but why don't you spell out for me what recent legal precedent has passed me by?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the right to rewrite the law
Let's fix the terminology first. An ISDS tribunal is not a "foreign court". But US law right now allows a foreign investor to initiate a dispute against the United States and initiate an arbitration tribunal.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What kind of politician
Which has nothing to do with ISDS ...
Re: Re: Re:
You seem to think that ISDS is available only to corporations, and not to individuals.
That is not the case. It is available, in certain circumstances (existence of a treaty, qualified investor and investment), to investors, be they individuals or corporations.
Re: Re: Re:
Thank you for the plug for my paper. Your mention will help my author rankings, Note, it wasn't a thesis, it was a peer-reviewed Law Review article. But to better help my rankings, we should cite it in full. Welch C, ‘Fact or Folklore? Mythbusting Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)’ (2016) 27 International Company and Commercial Law Review 411.
Just to be clear, are you referring to the Achmea decision? If you would clear that up, I'll respond.
No it doesn't. ISDS is to address complaints that a state has breached the treaty. But the rest of your sentence is correct. That is how it's meant to work.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda like a Bill of Rights
ISDS tribunals are lawfully constitutions. Why do you refer to them as "kangaroo courts", and why do you refer to them as "courts of corporations" ?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What kind of politician
I'll just take the first one. Selling cigarettes is a "right" as it's legal in most countries.
But the two ISDS tobacco cases failed. In one, that with Australia, the tribunal dismissed Philip Morris' corporate shenanigans trying to re-position itself as a subsidiary of a different entity in another country, purely to take advantage of a particular investment agreement.
In the other the tribunal determined that Uruguay had the right to legislate on tobacco packaging for the sake of the health of its citizens. Philip Morris lost.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where appropriate, trade and investment agreements are written in a variety of languages. The TPP, for example, was simultaneously published in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Japanese and French.
Oh no, you used Veolia as an example. Veolia did not complain about Alexandria raising the minimum wage, and they did not raise a dispute because of it. This was an unusual case in that Veolia had a contract with Alexandria that stating that should certain expenses go up, wages being one of a number, payments to Veolia would go up commensurably. Alexandria reneged on their contract, Veolia was unsuccessful in seeking redress in domestic courts, and raised an ISDS dispute.
Broken contract - tell me why they should not dispute it?
You forgot to mention that Veolia lost the dispute.
Then published in full. Available to all.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you're from the USA, this is what treason is:
Note the use of the word "enemy". Columbia is not an enemy of the United States. Even Iran is not an enemy of the United States.
Re: Re: Re:
Under which investment agreement ?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
China is not an enemy of the United States
Re:
It absolutely can.
Unless, of course, it has signed a treaty that says it will not.
Which is the case in this situation.
Re: Re:
The WTO has nothing at all to do with these cases.
No it doesn't.
No it doesn't.
You need to check what "treason" actually means. Clearly it does not mean what you think it does.
Re:
Corporations are required to respect the laws of a host country.
Re:
ISDS does not give anyone the right to "essentially rewrite another country's law".
Re: Re: Re:
Not exactly. ISDS ("Investor-State Dispute Settlement") is the name of the process. Tribunals can be convened under a number of different rule systems, or even none, depending on the agreement between the parties.
Yes, there is. The enforcement mechanism is well defined by the New York Convention.
More comments from Craig Welch >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Craig Welch.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt