>That's not at all how the TPP works. The treaty doesn't allow foreign governments to "override" local laws, but rather allows for damage claims against the governments themselves
Yet the net effect will be exactly that. The distinction is barely worth making.
> Yet the net effect will be exactly that. The distinction is barely worth making.
Assuming the foreign government in question actually decides to pursue action, more than one country has a history of ignoring WTO rulings not in their favor, despite their obligation to obey them.
Why would the TPP be different?
I think the TPP is not a great thing, but talking about foreign governments overriding local law is somewhat of a exaggeration.
Right. So, kind of like Ecuador letting Occidental back in after kicking them out for breach of contract. It might have had something to do with the lawsuit Occidental launched against them that cost them their entire health budget for the year but then again, perhaps it was just an extraordinary coincidence.
>Since governments settle economic claims against each other all the time //
I don't recall this sort of thing except in fines by the EU on member states - can you give examples to demonstrate to us all how commonplace it is?
Of course the claims will be by corporations - like the issues states have had with the tobacco corps suing when attempts to improve the health of the populous have cut in to profits.
ISDS (investor-state dispute settlement) provisions attempt to make up for the fact that the judicial system in some countries might not be available to work out disagreements between a corporation and a government. The corporation might not have standing, or the courts might not be independent enough to provide a fair hearing.
Companies won't invest unless they have a way to work out disagreements. Nations want foreign investment, so they are willing to provide an alternate way to work out disagreements--and that alternate way is ISDS.
My apologies Thomas; my EDIT was not directed at you (just in general). I've seen you write long enough on HN that I know that's not your style (downvote for disagreement).
Sovereign immunity is waived in case of monetary damages, so I believe they already can. Nor is there any reason why in principle they shouldn't, if the inverse is permitted.
>Nor is there any reason why in principle they shouldn't //
Philip Morris moved to Switzerland. Switzerland had a trade agreement with Uruguay. Uruguay take public health actions (increase size of warnings on cigarette packets). Now PM tobacco can sue Uruguay for enacting laws that harm a Swiss company. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-feat...)
That seems a reason not to allow this sort of thing.
Or at very least to ensure that certain types of actions of states are allowed regardless of impact on extra-national corporations profits - anything that improves the health of citizens for example.
A limitation of recompense up to the total tax paid by that corporation in the relevant country would be a good clause too.
Imagine is coffee is found to cause bowel cancer and instead of using funds to help your citizens your country pays Starbucks for their lost profits because you issued a notice to your citizens warning them of the detrimental effect; meanwhile Starbucks through clever IPR moves have offshored most of their profits and avoided paying tax in your country ...
Yet the net effect will be exactly that. The distinction is barely worth making.