The Trans-Pacific Partnership clause everyone should oppose.. By Elizabeth Warren

[Ichingcarpenter]

By Elizabeth Warren February 25 at 8:38 PM
Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat, represents Massachusetts in the Senate.



The United States is in the final stages of negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a massive free-trade agreement with Mexico, Canada, Japan, Singapore and seven other countries. Who will benefit from the TPP? American workers? Consumers? Small businesses? Taxpayers? Or the biggest multinational corporations in the world?

One strong hint is buried in the fine print of the closely guarded draft. The provision, an increasingly common feature of trade agreements, is called “Investor-State Dispute Settlement,” or ISDS. The name may sound mild, but don’t be fooled. Agreeing to ISDS in this enormous new treaty would tilt the playing field in the United States further in favor of big multinational corporations. Worse, it would undermine U.S. sovereignty.

ISDS would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws — and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers — without ever stepping foot in a U.S. court. Here’s how it would work. Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and environmental consequences. If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would normally have to challenge it in a U.S. court. But with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators. If the company won, the ruling couldn’t be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions — and even billions — of dollars in damages.

If that seems shocking, buckle your seat belt..............................


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-settlement-language-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership/2015/02/25/ec7705a2-bd1e-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html?tid=rssfeed

[joshcryer]

1. ICSID arbitration favors developed countries.

I mean, being cynical here, Warren should be for it if she wants to support US courts, because the US will tend to win ICSID cases.

BTW, her example is kind of silly, because if the US banned a toxic chemical under the environmental conventions, and another state violated that, the US would be the one suing and the US would win. How another party could win that case belies belief.

ICSID is based in the US and is a way for the US to arbitrate things outside of other countries' courts. Get small developing countries to sign on, then hit them with an arbitration that the US is guaranteed to win.

[djean111]

3. The point is - these cases will not be adjudicated in a US court - they will be

adjudicated in a corporate court, argued by corporate lawyers, and decided by corporate judges. Outside of this, or any, country's judicial system. A very neat coup, and evidently not understood by many people.
The US would not be suing, the corporation who wants to use the toxic chemical will be suing.

[joshcryer]

5. No any case regarding the US would be in the US.

In the ICSID, based in the US. With US judges, US lawyers, and favor to the US. There is a reason the US wants this in there, and it's not to weaken our hand.

No doubt it is a corporate based policy, but that's how we roll as a country. This is absolutely not letting some foreigners decide. All cases will be decided in Washington with the outcome almost pre-decided in our favor.

[haele]

8. Who or what groups appoints the arbitration judges becomes the question.

The US dept. of Commerce? The WTO? The AEI? The Fed? The Chamber of Commerce? The Sierra Club?
Will it be a lottery whereby any lawyer that specializes in Trade and Patent law that holds a current license to practice law puts his/her card in a hopper and gets summoned if there's a case and the "lucky card" with that name gets pulled?

Or would it be like appointing a FISA judge? Do all the "stakeholders" have an equal vote to determine potential judges? Will Lobbyists have an input - can they get a judge kicked out of a court like this for being too "unfair to business"?

I'm pretty sure it won't be a Federal Government (even though these judges might have to get approved either through Congress or through some administration Department within the governments who signed the treaty). And if there is some sort of federal input, the current environment favors globalization and neo-liberalism over any assessment of risk to anything outside of the benefits to free trade or financial growth. The "Free-Trade Prosperity Gospel" has thousands of influential followers in high places all over this country.
There will certainly not be any effort to seek approval for this arbitration process from the general citizenry - basically person or organization that doesn't already have a stable of lawyers ready to sue anyone who potentially "threatens" revenue streams or shareholder fiduciary responsibilities.

There's enough supply-sider neo-liberals with degrees in law and economics who honestly believe to the pit of their black souls that "caveat emptor" is fair because "Market Forces" will take care of everything and the concept of regulation and "common good" is a hindrance to a global economic well-being and "commodity good". The idea that any arbitration against the U.S. would be handled in a U.S. court does not give me much solace in this political atmosphere.

Haele

[joshcryer]

9. Does it matter if the outcome is in our favor?

That's the whole point of the ICSID. Give us an edge against foreign companies. That's why so many foreign companies are opting out.

[Panich52]

2. Kick

[Omaha Steve]

4. I found a little something to go with this

[dixiegrrrrl]

10. These partnership agreements are focused on diluting sovereign state boundaries.

Quite like the European Union has done, which is what people are beginning to realize.
They give trans-national corporations superior rights over indiv. counties, including the USA.
This much has been known for some time but still not getting much publicity.

[WillyT]

6. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[KamaAina]

7. Why don't they call it “Investor-State Irritation Settlement”?

[KoKo]

11. K&R!

Didn't see that you had posted this already when I posted it...so I deleted. my duplicate.