Make Investor State Dispute Settlement visible

“In einem Abkommen zwischen der EU und den USA ist ein Mechanismus zur Investor-Staat-Streitbeilegung schlicht nicht notwendig.

Hier sollen drei Juristen über die höchsten Gerichte der beiden Länder gestellt werden. Die ganze Grundidee von ISDS ist der Schutz von Unternehmensprofiten. Folglich wird jede Umweltschutzgesetzgebung, jede Sozialgesetzgebung, jedes Arbeitsrecht darunter leiden. Denn all diese Gesetze schmälern die Profite von Unternehmen. Wenn man die Voraussetzungen von ISDS akzeptiert, kann man den Status quo in keinem dieser Felder mehr verbessern.” Weiterlesen.

“Commenting on the deal Green trade policy spokesperson Yannick Jadot (MEP, France) said: ‘This far-reaching agreement, which has been negotiated and sealed with little transparency, poses a real threat to agriculture, and could undermine EU rules on environment and consumer protection.’

‘For the first time, an EU trade agreement includes provisions on investment protection and investor-to-state dispute settlement. This could open the door to a race to the bottom in terms of public policy. It will allow corporations to challenge EU regulations, for example on consumer protection, public health or the environment, with a view to overturning more ambitious rules through an opaque and costly arbitration process,’ he said.” Read more.

Glyn Moody writes about a lecture, held at at the last session of 9. Initiative “Globalization and Internet” of the Collaboratory e.V. Read more.

And here is a stream of his lecture:

Glyn Moody comments the paper of the European Commission on ISDS. Read more.

“Absent state intervention on their behalf, tobacco companies found a new way to fight efforts to regulate tobacco marketing. They take advantage of an “investor-state” dispute options being built into more free trade agreements between countries, which allows companies to directly challenge regulations they believe discriminate against foreign products. Unlike fighting laws in domestic legislatures or through WTO disputes, which are more formal and predictable, investor-state conflicts are decided by a panel of international arbitrators with no appeal, making them more attractive to multinational corporations.” Read more.

“Traditionally, this proposed political empowerment for corporations [ISDS] has been defended as a way to protect companies from arbitrary governments or weakened court systems in developing countries. But the expansion of the practice to first-world relations exposes that rationale as disingenuous. Rule of law in the U.S. and EU is considered strong; the court systems are among the most sophisticated and expert in the world. Most cases brought against the United States under NAFTA have been dismissed or abandoned before an international court issued a ruling.

But companies have grown increasingly ambitious in recent years, with major outfits including Exxon Mobil and Dow Chemical challenging Canadian rules that apply to offshore oil drilling, hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) and the use of pesticides.” Read more.

Professor für Wirtschaftsrecht verteidigt geheim tagende Schiedsgerichte gegen Kritik

“Diese Schiedsverfahren haben gerade den entscheidenden Vorteil, dass sie vertraulich durchgeführt werden. Das hat für beide Seiten, auch für den Gaststaat, insofern, als die Vertraulichkeit auch ihn schützt. Ich denke, dass die Kontrolle durch die Öffentlichkeit im Fall von Schiedsgerichten nicht so wichtig ist wie im Fall von staatlichen Gerichten. Denn die Beteiligung der Öffentlichkeit hat gerade auch die Kontrollfunktion zum Schutz der beiden Streitparteien gegenüber einem möglicherweise willkürlich agierenden staatlichen Richter. Anders ist es aber bei den Schiedsgerichten, wo ja die Parteien selbst die Schiedsrichter bestimmt haben und insofern volles Vertrauen in ihr eigenes, selbst eingesetztes Schiedsgericht haben können. Die Kontrollfunktion der Öffentlichkeit wird also entbehrlich.” Weiterlesen.

“Investor-to-state dispute settlement gives multinationals the right to sue states before special tribunals if changes in law may lead to lower profits than expected. Multinationals can attack environmental policies, health policies and reform of copyright and patent law. This undermines democracy, the rule of law and the public interest.” Read more.

“So-called investor-state dispute settlement provisions would enable US companies investing in Europe to challenge EU governments directly at international tribunals, whenever they find that laws in the area of public health, consumer, environmental or social protection interfere with their profits. EU companies investing abroad would have the same privilege in the US.”

“This is an attack on democracy and legislation in the public interest. The companies can claim compensation if governments create regulations that go against the corporate interest.” Read more.

“The problem is the inclusion of “investor-state dispute settlement” (ISDS). This began as a perfectly reasonable attempt to ensure that investments in developing countries were not unlawfully expropriated by rogue governments. The idea was that if such an event occurred, and the local government refused to compensate the investor, the latter had recourse to independent international courts that considered the case and awarded damages that could be levied against the government in question in other ways – for example, seizing their assets abroad.” Read more.