Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Secretive TPP lets 9,000 foreign corporations bypass US law and sue American taxpayers for millions
https://represent.us/action/shut-down-the-tpp/?rd=1&t=2&referring_akid=5360.353763.JEHB9dTPP is a secretive and corrupt trade agreement being negotiated by special interest lobbyists and corporate lawyers around the world. One committee vote could shut it down right now.
Now, they’re trying to fast-track the Trans-Pacific Partnership without ANY real debate or even a full vote in Congress.
Conservatives, progressives, and libertarians all hate this deal. “Fast track” approval is only one committee vote away from heading to the House floor — the time to shut it down is right now. Watch the video to learn more and add your name to demand that the corrupt TPP fast-track be stopped:
13 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Who knows if these things really do any good. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement
So now I'm curious in what ways the TPP ISDS is different from the NAFTA ISDS.
Here's the NAFTA part:
A notable example of ISDS, which has been in existence for two decades now, is Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA Chapter 11 allows investors of one NAFTA party (Canada, United States or Mexico) to bring claims directly against the government of another NAFTA party before an international arbitral tribunal. Because NAFTA Article 1121 waives the local remedies rule, investors are not required to exhaust local remedies before filing Chapter 11 claims. While this fact has been amply criticized in public, proponents of ISDS tend to point out, that speedy dispute resolution through ISDS is critical in modern economic environments and would be defeated by adding several instances of local remedies. On the other hand, there is no other situation in international law where a private party can sue a state without showing that the state's domestic courts are not independent or reliable. The removal of the customary duty to exhaust local remedies, where they are reasonably available, has been a factor in the explosion of investment treaty claims since the late 1990s.
Investors may initiate an arbitration against the NAFTA Party under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law ("UNCITRAL Rules"
or under the Rules of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes ("ICSID Rules" . NAFTA Chapter 11 was the first instance of an ISDS provision receiving widespread public attention, especially in the United States in the wake of the Methanex case.[3]
So now I'm curious in what ways the TPP ISDS is different from the NAFTA ISDS.
Here's the NAFTA part:
A notable example of ISDS, which has been in existence for two decades now, is Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA Chapter 11 allows investors of one NAFTA party (Canada, United States or Mexico) to bring claims directly against the government of another NAFTA party before an international arbitral tribunal. Because NAFTA Article 1121 waives the local remedies rule, investors are not required to exhaust local remedies before filing Chapter 11 claims. While this fact has been amply criticized in public, proponents of ISDS tend to point out, that speedy dispute resolution through ISDS is critical in modern economic environments and would be defeated by adding several instances of local remedies. On the other hand, there is no other situation in international law where a private party can sue a state without showing that the state's domestic courts are not independent or reliable. The removal of the customary duty to exhaust local remedies, where they are reasonably available, has been a factor in the explosion of investment treaty claims since the late 1990s.
Investors may initiate an arbitration against the NAFTA Party under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law ("UNCITRAL Rules"
or under the Rules of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes ("ICSID Rules" . NAFTA Chapter 11 was the first instance of an ISDS provision receiving widespread public attention, especially in the United States in the wake of the Methanex case.[3]
