I am reposting his( or her) explanation of this controversial treaty to allay the alarm some reports are invoking. Why am I so inclined to believe the worst?
"Investor State Dispute Settlement", (ISDS) - a system in use by the US, Canada, Australia and other countries for decades.
As I understand it this is a system to offer some protection to states and corporations who agree to invest in a country. Country A agrees a trade treaty with country B and under terms of this treaty a corporation in Country A makes an investment in Country B.
If country B breaches the treaty then without ISDS the only thing those corporations who have made the investment would be to sue country B through the courts of that country - hardly a just or realistic option.
ISDS is an international arbitration system whose decision is binding on both parties - like all arbitration systems the fact that a case is going to be arbitrated is not kept secret nor is this decision of the panel - what is kept 'secret' is the actual hearing itself.
Some say such a system is necessary to encourage investment and to protect the investor - others that it can overide a change of policy the country receiving the investment may wish to make.
I'm on the fence over whether the UK should make such trade agreements.
Take two scenarios - the current arbitration case between Philip Morris and Australia - in simple terms Philip Morris made a large investment in order to make tobacco products and are arguing that Australias decision to enforce plain packaging for cigarettes is in breach of the treaty under which this investment was made.
I imagine there will be little sympathy for the investor in this case where a country is changing its regulations for health reasons.
But then there is the case where Occidental invested hundred of millions in Ecuador who when building was completed then revoked Occidental's licence making their investment worthless."
Thanks once more to upthecreekyetagain for setting the issue out so clearly.
