Skip to main content

Lobby-occupied bureaucrats attempt to bypass the enormous popular opposition against ISDS

ISDS [investor-state dispute settlement system], is included in thousands of international agreements. It allows companies to sue governments if policy changes – even ones to protect public health or the environment – are deemed to affect their profits. These lawsuits bypass domestic courts and take place before an international tribunal of arbitrators, three private lawyers who decide whether private profits or public interests are more important. Across the world, investor-state tribunals have granted big business billions of dollars from taxpayers’ pockets – often in compensation for public interest measures.


When the European Commission proposed to include this powerful legal regime for corporations in the trade deal under negotiation with the United States, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership TTIP, this triggered massive opposition: over 97% of a record 150,000 participants rejected such corporate privileges in a public consultation. Criticism also mounted in EU member states and the European Parliament. ‘ISDS’ has become “the most toxic acronym in Europe”, according to EU trade chief Cecilia Malmström.

In an attempt to get around the enormous opposition generated by ISDS, the European Commission chose a different label when, in autumn 2015, it released a revised proposal for all the EU’s ongoing and future investment negotiations, including TTIP. Instead of the ‘old’ ISDS system, the Commission promised a ‘new’ and allegedly independent system, supposed to protect governments’ right to regulate: the Investment Court System or ICS.

The analysis in this report shows that the proposed ICS does not put an end to ISDS. Quite the opposite, it would empower thousands of companies to circumvent national legal systems and sue governments in parallel tribunals if laws and regulations undercut their ability to make money. It would pave the way for billions in taxpayer money being paid out to big business. It could curtail desirable policymaking to protect people and the planet. And it threatens to lock EU member states forever into the injustices of the ISDS regime.

Key findings:

  • The number of investor-state cases, as well as the sum of money involved, has skyrocketed over the last two decades from a total of three known treaty cases in 1995 to nearly 700 known investor-state claims by January 2016 and an absolute record high of 70 new investor lawsuits filed in 2015 alone. The amount of money has also expanded dramatically, with a compensation award against a country reaching the staggering sum of US$50 billion in one case. The main financial beneficiaries have been large corporations and rich individuals.

  • The last two decades have seen billion-dollar investor lawsuits against the alleged damage to corporate profit of legislation and government measures in the public interest. Countries on every continent have been challenged for anti-smoking legislation, bans on toxic chemicals, anti-discrimination policies, financial stability measures, restrictions on dirty mining projects, and more. For example, 60% of the claims against EU member states concerned the environment. A lawyer defending countries in these cases has called their legal base, international investment agreements, “weapons of legal destruction”.

  • The EU’s ‘new’ ISDS model (re-labelled ICS) is as dangerous for democracy, public interest law, and public money as the ‘old’ model enshrined in the EU-Canada trade agreement CETA. With the exception of some procedural improvements – an enhanced selection process for arbitrators, stronger ethics rules, and the establishment of an appellate body – the rebranded version essentially contains the same investor privileges, often in wording identical to the CETA text.

  • Investor claims against non-discriminatory and lawful measures to protect health, the environment, and other public interests would be possible under the new EU proposal as it includes the same far-reaching investor rights relied upon by companies like Philip Morris (suing Uruguay over tobacco control measures) and TransCanada (which has announced it will sue the US for US$15 billion over the rejection of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline).

  • Under the EU proposal, billions in taxpayers’ money could be paid to corporations, including for future lost profits that they hypothetically could have earned (like in one case against Libya which was ordered to pay US$905 million to a company which had only invested US$5 million). Countries could also be ordered to pay compensation for new laws and regulations in the public interest. The EU’s proposed formulations on the protection of the right to regulate would not shield governments from these potentially crippling costs.

  • The EU proposal increases the risk of costly lawsuits against public interest measures as it arguably grants investors even more rights than many existing investment treaties, which have already led to hundreds of investor-state lawsuits around the world:
      a) By protecting investors’ “legitimate expectations” under the so-called “fair and equitable treatment” clause, the EU risks codifying a very expansive interpretation of the clause that would create the ‘right’ to a stable regulatory environment. This would give investors a powerful weapon to fight regulatory changes, even if implemented in light of new knowledge and democratic choice.
      b) The type of dangerous umbrella clause proposed by the EU would lift all written contracts of a state with regards to an investment to the level of international law, multiplying the risk of costly lawsuits. The clause is not part of the CETA between the EU and Canada, presumably because Canada rejected it as too risky.

  • If the US-EU trade agreement TTIP included the proposed investor rights, liability and financial risks would multiply for EU member states and far exceed those posed by any existing treaty signed by them: under TTIP, 19 more EU countries could directly be sued by US investors (compared to only 9 with an investment treaty with the US today); TTIP would cover 99 per cent more US-based investment in the EU (up from only 1 per cent under existing treaties); and more than 47,000 companies would be newly empowered to sue (compared to around 4,500 today). TTIP could invite the launch of nearly 900 US investor lawsuits against EU member states (compared to 9 claims under existing treaties).

  • Under the EU proposal, transnational companies could even sue their own governments – by structuring their investment through a subsidiary abroad or asking an abroad shareholder to sue. In the context of TTIP, this danger is particularly real given the US$3.5 trillion worth of US-held securities in the EU. There is hardly a ‘European’ company that does not have a ‘US’ investor who would have standing to bring a TTIP claim against the EU or its member states.

  • The EU’s investor rights proposal is a sure-fire way to bully decision-makers, potentially curtailing desirable policymaking. There is already evidence that proposed environmental and health protections have been abandoned, delayed or otherwise adapted to corporate wishes because of expensive claims or the threat of litigation. Canada and New Zealand, for example, have delayed anti-smoking policies because of looming investor lawsuits from Big Tobacco.

  • The dispute settlement process proposed by the EU is not judicially independent, but has a built-in, pro-investor bias. Since only investors can sue, there is an incentive for the arbitrators (re-labelled ‘judges’ in the EU proposal) to side with them as this will bring more lawsuits, fees, and prestige in the future. Restrictive selection criteria, the lack of cooling off periods and loopholes in the proposed ethics code for the arbitrators also give rise to concerns that tribunals will be staffed with the same private lawyers who have until now driven the boom in investment arbitration and grown their own business – by encouraging investors to sue and by interpreting investment law expansively to encourage more claims.

  • There are serious doubts about whether the investor rights proposal is compatible with EU law, one reason for growing concerns amongst judges. The Commission’s proposal sidelines European courts and is fundamentally discriminatory, granting special rights to foreign investors only. They could challenge court rulings as well as actions by governments and laws passed by Parliament, from the local to the European level.

  • Rather than putting an end to ISDS, the EU’s investment protection agenda threatens to lock EU members into ISDS forever. It will be practically impossible for them to exit from the investor privileges once those are enshrined in larger trade deals such as TTIP or CETA (because they would effectively have to leave the EU). The Commission’s proposed multilateral investment court – essentially a world supreme court exclusively available to corporations – risks perpetuating an already gravely unjust system where one side, typically large companies or wealthy individuals, get exceptionally powerful and actionable rights while the other side, the people of a country, get only responsibilities.

Full Report:

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Former Pentagon official confirms: Trump prepares for war with Iran

globinfo freexchange
Right after Trump's sudden announcement that he will withdraw the US forces from Syria, we had some mixed reactions. Some liberals reacted angrily, but most of the reactions from the liberal machine were rather moderate, or at least not as intensive as someone would normally expect.
On the other hand, Trump's supporters and all those who had enough of the pro-war neoliberal establishment, felt a kind of vindication, as it appeared that Trump would eventually keep its promise for an 'anti-interventionist' policy.
But the blog wrote immediately a 'not so fast' article to explain that most of the Americans and all those who are tired of the US endless wars, should not rush to celebrate. We estimated that Trump's move is probably a sign that he is going to re-organize troops and go after the big target called Iran.
Indeed, shortly after the move, Trump, suddenly again, announced that he will also pullout troops from Afghanistan.
And then, about…

Panicked neoliberal tools attempt to trigger a war of generations against AOC's progressive counterattack

globinfo freexchange
We were slightly surprised to see such an article title in one of the primary info tools of the global neoliberal regime and financial capital. But the subtitle immediately clarified everything.
When we read the title “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Revenge of the Millennials” of the article in Bloomberg, we thought that we might be in front of a small miracle. We thought that the time has come for some people inside the core of the establishment apparatus to admit that the younger generations have lost dramatically from this brutal system. And so, the time has come to overthrow it, take their 'revenge'.
But no, it was too good to be true.
The subtitle immediately revealed the trick: “The Democrats’ major economic initiatives tend to favor the young at the expense of the old.”
Then, inside the article we read: “Almost every major new economic initiative proposed by Democrats — the Green New Deal, Medicare for all, debt-free college — has a common feature: Un…

The desperate efforts of the Western neoliberal establishment to build a new propaganda machine

globinfo freexchange
The UK government and other Western governments and the US in recent years have had increasing difficulties persuading enough of their populations as to the legitimacy of the foreign policies that they have been pursuing.
And at the same time, Western countries have been going through a period of political crisis and economic crisis.
Piers Robinson, Chair in Politics, Society and Political Journalism at the University of Sheffield, further explains:
I think a lot of this drive is as much about trying to shore up shaky official narratives and trying to shore up political systems in a situation of political crisis, as it is actually about countering Russian propaganda.
I would suspect that that's a little bit of an excuse here to really what's going on of problems much closer to home.
This is not just to do to UK, this is Europe-wide. And there are also indications from the documents that they are intending to start to have some kind of impact within the United…

How neoliberalism manufactured consent to secure its unlimited power

From David Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism
Part 10 – How Margaret Thatcher systematically destroyed the British industry along with the trade unions
While there were many elements out of which consent for a neoliberal turn could be constructed, the Thatcher phenomenon would surely not have arisen, let alone succeeded, if it had not been for the serious crisis of capital accumulation during the 1970s. Stagflation was hurting everyone. In 1975 inflation surged to 26 per cent and unemployment topped one million. The nationalized industries were draining resources from the Treasury.
This set up a confrontation between the state and the unions. In 1972, and then again in 1974, the British miners (a nationalized industry) went on strike for the first time since 1926.
The miners had always been in the forefront of British labour struggles. Their wages were not keeping pace with accelerating inflation, and the public sympathized. The Conservative government, in the midst of power …

Confirmed: Germany builds its own imperialist empire

globinfo freexchange
Almost two years ago we identified Germany's efforts to develop its military in the context of its ambition to build its own sphere of influence.
As we wrote, Brexit will give the chance to Germany to increase influence due to the change of power balance, especially now that France appears weak - crawling behind Berlin's austerity, sado-monetarism and neoliberal destruction. These conditions (created in the Greek experiment), are necessary to Germany in order to retain a model in favor of its surpluses. These could become the solid ground upon which Germany could build a strong, modern military machine.
Therefore, Merkel knows that the economic domination is not adequate for a country to become a major power. It is also important to have a strong military presence in its “sphere of influence”, or, its financial/debt colonies, if you prefer. The German military presence in Lithuania is a first step towards this direction as the Baltic countries have already be…

WikiLeaks disturbing and hopeful findings on Tulsi Gabbard's path to progressiveness

The definite detachment from the Clintonian machine
globinfo freexchange
Searching the Podesta emails inside WikiLeaks we found a rather disturbing fact about Tulsi Gabbard who recently announced that she will run for the 2020 US presidency. Iraq War Veteran, Jon Soltz, chairman at VoteVets at the time, sent an email on Aug. 2012 to Hillary Clinton top lobbyist, John Podesta, in order to thank him for his contribution to Gabbard's campaign in Hawaii.
Soltz wrote (emphasis added):
This morning, we are one step closer to making history. In Hawaii, VoteVets PAC-endorsed Iraq veteran Tulsi Gabbard has won her primary, in a stunning come-from-behind victory. If she wins in November, she along with Tammy Duckworth (who we also feel very good about), would be the first female combat veteran ever elected to Congress in United States history! This is happening because of you. Your tens of thousands of dollars in donations for Tulsi's campaign, through VoteVets PAC, allowed her to run a fir…

The difference between Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn and what the US elections won't allow you to decide

globinfo freexchange
A country that has been completely taken over by the banking mafia and the corporate power will never allow people to decide on the most important issue: the abolition of the dominant system that works against them.
Professor Richard Wolff explains:
Because of Bernie Sanders, particularly, we now have the word Socialism floating around, but typically it's about, more or less, really among Democrats. Like Mr. Sanders is ambiguously an independent but he's also a Democrat.
So, the ‘Socialists’ seemed to be the Democrats who want to do more for people. Social welfare, social supports, state supports, versus those who don't want to do quite so much - the centrist Democrats, like Clinton and Obama.
But the real question is a program of change. Socialism is a change of system it goes away from capitalism to do something else. It would be interesting if we could have an election ‘do we want that?’, ‘would we like a different system?’.
There are countries doing t…

The IMF is dismantling Argentina all over again

Part 1
In September, Argentine president Mauricio Macri accepted the 2018 Atlantic Council’s Global Citizen Award. In attendance were many of world’s neoliberal power players and policy makers, among them International Monetary Fund (IMF) Managing Director Christine Lagarde.
Facing the crowd, Macri gleefully admitted that “with Christine, I have to confess we started a great relationship some months ago,” referring to a series of loan agreements with the IMF amounting to $57.1 billion dollars. “I expect that this is going to work very well, and we will end up with the whole country crushing on Christine,” he continued.
This dynamic of chasing an improved image with the world’s big banks and the dominant economies in the West is emblematic of Macri’s priority to secure a relationship with the IMF and improve the country’s image with global financial institutions. But it comes at a devastating cost for the majority of the population who will suffer from neoliberal policy prescriptions of…

How neoliberalism manufactured consent to secure its unlimited power

From David Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism
Part 11 – The Reagan/Thatcher neoliberal legacy: a bizarre form of a sinister political doctrine from which it would be difficult one to escape
But Thatcher had to fight the battle on other fronts. A noble rearguard action against neoliberal policies was mounted in many a municipality –– Sheffield, the Greater London Council (which Thatcher had to abolish in order to achieve her broader goals in the 1980s), and Liverpool (where half the local councillors had to be gaoled) formed active centres of resistance in which the ideals of a new municipal socialism (incorporating many of the new social movements in the London case) were both pursued and acted upon until they were finally crushed in the mid-1980s.
She began by savagely cutting back central government funding to the municipalities, but several of them responded simply by raising property taxes, forcing her to legislate against their right to do so. Denigrating the progressive…

Banishing Truth

by Chris Hedges
The investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, in his memoir “Reporter,” describes a moment when as a young reporter he overheard a Chicago cop admit to murdering an African-American man. The murdered man had been falsely described by police as a robbery suspect who had been shot while trying to avoid arrest. Hersh frantically called his editor to ask what to do.
The editor urged me to do nothing,” he writes. “It would be my word versus that of all the cops involved, and all would accuse me of lying. The message was clear: I did not have a story. But of course I did.” He describes himself as “full of despair at my weakness and the weakness of a profession that dealt so easily with compromise and self-censorship.
Hersh, the greatest investigative reporter of his generation, uncovered the U.S. military’s chemical weapons program, which used thousands of soldiers and volunteers, including pacifists from the Seventh-day Adventist Church, as unwitting human guinea pigs to measure…