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

The worst-case scenario for the US general election may lead to a working class civil war

globinfo freexchange
In June we wrote that various types of far-right armed groups, often self-described as "civil guard" who are Trump's paramilitary section, have now come to the front line in order to secure Trump's second term at any cost. Even if it takes a civil war.

We estimated that in the worst-case scenario, Trump loses marginally and his "brigades" take action as they are forming a loony army, driven by racism, ultra-conservative ideas and far-right extreme conspiracy theories. And therefore, they will certainly question the result of the election in that case.

Yet, another, even worse scenario as it seems, came up lately. It has been analyzed by a DNC think tank also funded by Michael Bloomberg. As axios.comreported:
A top Democratic data and analytics firm told "Axios on HBO" it's highly likely that President Trump will appear to have won — potentially in a landslide — on election night, even if he ultimately loses when all the…

At last: Nina Turner blows up the liberal machine, clearly pointing both neofascism and neoliberalism as the evils that the Left must fight until final victory

globinfo freexchange
It was about time. We thought it would take centuries until someone from the Left would dare to say the word "neoliberalism" inside the nest of the US liberal machine.
Nina Turner was meant to be the one who finally told the truth as clearly as she could:
                         Progressives are still on the mission, understanding very clearly that we got two dragons we got to slay. We got to slay the dragon of neofascism and slay the dragon of neoliberalism. 



That is, in purely political terms and ahead of the 2020 presidential election, progressives will have to fight against two monsters at the same time: Donald Trump (neofascism) and the corporate Dems/never-Trump Republicans alliance (neoliberalism). It would be almost impossible to defeat them both, without their own independent political party.

In essence, progressives will have to fight both factions of the capitalist class that are now involved in a peculiar civil war behind the scenes.

As we ex…

COVID-19 boosts a non-viable "economic" reality which proves that capitalism is already dead

globinfo freexchange
It's time to find another definition for the current dominant "economic" system because it's not capitalism for sure. Call it, say, 21st century corporate feudalism, or whatever you like. We can now be certain that capitalism is dead.
Yanis Varoufakis describes this new, bizarre situation perfectly:
                         In Britain, the news came out that the economy had suffered its greatest slump ever – more than 22% down during the first 7 months of 2020. Remarkably, on the same day, the London Stock Exchange, the FTSE100 index, rose by more than 2%. On the same day, during a time America has ground to a halt and is beginning to look like not just as an economy in deep trouble but also, ominously, as a failed state, Wall Street’s SP500 index hit an all-time record.
Financial capitalism has decoupled from the capitalist economy, skyrocketing out of Earth's orbit, leaving behind it broken lives & dreams. As the UK sinks into the worst …

Against the extradition of Julian Assange to the USA

DiEM25
Julian Assange has been imprisoned in the high-security HMP Belmarsh in London since April 11, 209, as he faces extradition to the United States, where he has been indicted on 18 counts for obtaining, possessing, conspiring to publish and for publishing classified information. With the first-ever use of the Espionage Act for a publisher, the indictment represents an unprecedented attack on press freedom around the world. For Julian Assange, who could face up to 175 years in prison, a conviction could be a death sentence.


Το Μητσοτακικό καθεστώς υποχωρεί ατάκτως σε όλα τα μέτωπα

globinfo freexchange
Ήδη από τον Φεβρουάριο είχαμε επισημάνει ότι το προσφυγικό ζήτημα ήταν αυτό που κυρίως επίσπευσε την αποκάλυψη της απόλυτης ένδειας του Μητσοτακικού καθεστώτος και την πλήρη ανικανότητά του να χειριστεί σχεδόν οποιοδήποτε πρόβλημα. 
Δυστυχώς, το χάος που επικρατεί στη Λέσβο μετά την καταστροφή στη Μόρια, επιβεβαίωσε πλήρως και πάλι αυτό το πλέον δεδομένο.
Όσον αφορά τα εθνικά, σοκ θα πρέπει να προκάλεσε στους παραδοσιακούς ψηφοφόρους της πατριωτικής δεξιάς η αποκάλυψη ότι ο Μητσοτάκης, μέσα από δικό του άρθρο, έκανε λόγο ακόμα και για «έγγραφη συμφωνία» μεταξύ Ελλάδας και Τουρκίας. Και όλα αυτά, παρά τις πομπώδεις διακηρύξεις στελεχών του καθεστώτος ότι δεν πρόκειται να γίνει διάλογος αν ο Ερντογάν δεν εγκαταλείψει τις εμπρηστικές ενέργειες και τη ρητορική των απειλών. 

Όπως φαίνεται, δυστυχώς είχαμε και σε αυτό δίκιο, καθώς ήδη από τον περσινό Ιούλιο γράφαμε ότι οι "σταχτοπούτες" της δεξιάς μεταμορφώθηκαν, εν μια νυκτί, από υπερασπιστές των πατριωτ…

Why the Bill Gates global health empire promises more empire and less public health

Behind a veil of corporate media PR, the Gates Foundation has served as a vehicle for Western capital while exploiting the Global South as a human laboratory. The coronavirus pandemic is likely to intensify this disturbing agenda.
by Jeremy Loffredo and Michele Greenstein
Part 12 - A centralized stockpile to “make WHO dependent on the goodwill of Big Pharma”
In October 2019, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security hosted “Event 201” in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Gates Foundation.
A former steering committee member of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security is now the Trump administration’s stockpile chief, and the CEO of Johns Hopkins Medicine is also on the board of directors at the pharmaceutical corporation Merck.
Event 201 was an exercise simulating the outbreak of a novel coronavirus. It included representatives from the U.S. National Security Council, as well as corporate leadership from drugmakers like Johnson & Johnson.
While similarities bet…

Declassified CIA doc proves Clinton administration had been informed about a potential 9/11-style attack at least since 1998

globinfo freexchange
In 2017, CIA published online nearly 13 million pages of declassified records, including papers on the US role in overthrowing foreign governments and the secret 'Star Gate' telepathy project.
A peculiar 1998 memo (President's daily brief) from the archive (under the title Bin Ladin Preparing To Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks), proves that Clinton administration had already been informed about a potential al-Qaeda 9/11-style operation.
Key parts:
Reporting suggest Bin Ladin and his allies are preparing for attacks in the US, including an aircraft hijacking to obtain the release of Shaykh Umar Abd al-Rahman, Ramzi Yousef, and Muhammad Sadiq Awda. 
One source quoted a senior member of the Gama at al-Islamiyya (IG) saying that, as of late October, the IG had completed planning for an operation in the US on behalf of Bin Ladin, but that the operation was on hold. A senior Bin Ladin operative from Saudi Arabia was to visit IG counterparts in the US soo…

Israel bombs Gaza every day since UAE normalization announced

The Grayzone
Red Lines host Anya Parampil speaks with Ali Abunimah, co-founder of the Electronic Intifada, about the recent announcement that Israel and the United Arab Emirates plan to normalize relations. They discuss the conditions which led to the deal as well as what the agreement will mean for Palestinians, particularly those in the besieged Gaza Strip.

NSA surveillance exposed by Snowden was illegal, court rules seven years on

Seven years after the former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden blew the whistle on the mass surveillance of Americans’ telephone records, an appeals court has found the program was unlawful – and that the US intelligence leaders who publicly defended it were not telling the truth.
In a ruling handed down on Wednesday, the US court of appeals for the ninth circuit said the warrantless telephone dragnet that secretly collected millions of Americans’ telephone records violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and may well have been unconstitutional.
Snowden, who fled to Russia in the aftermath of the 2013 disclosures and still faces US espionage charges, said on Twitter that the ruling was a vindication of his decision to go public with evidence of the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping operation.
I never imagined that I would live to see our courts condemn the NSA’s activities as unlawful and in the same ruling credit me for exposing them,” Snow…

The OAS accusation of electoral fraud against Evo Morales is bullshit — and now we have the data to prove it

The day after the Bolivian election, the Organization of American States suggested the result was fraudulent — then took months to provide any proof. Last month, it finally released its data — and researchers at the Center for Economic and Policy Research found a basic coding error that destroys the OAS’s case against Morales.
by David Rosnick 
Part 2 - Unjustly Forced Out
The damage, of course, had already been done. On November 11, 2019, Bolivia’s president, Evo Morales — his term not yet complete — stepped down from the presidency amid allegations of fraud. Decisive was the report from the OAS, which had just presented its preliminary findings in a binding audit of the October 20 election. These findings were not favorable to Morales, questioning his official first-round victory.
Members of the opposition, some of whom had been saying all along that Morales and his Movement Toward Socialism (MAS-IPSP) party would attempt fraud to stay in power, took to the streets in violent protest.…