TTIP trap – European Commission rebrands untenable ISDS with “Investment Court System”
There is a long disputed proposal within the
TTIP deal itself that many organisations, from Europe wide citizen
protest groups to publicly and privately funded legal entities and even
MP’s contending that democracy itself is under question as a direct
result of the Investor State Dispute Settlement
or ISDS. The European Commission have privately acknowledged that ISDS
is not acceptable to their citizens and reacted merely by rebranding
ISDS much the same way that “Shell-Shock” is now “Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder”. Same thing, softer tone.
TTIP deal itself that many organisations, from Europe wide citizen
protest groups to publicly and privately funded legal entities and even
MP’s contending that democracy itself is under question as a direct
result of the Investor State Dispute Settlement
or ISDS. The European Commission have privately acknowledged that ISDS
is not acceptable to their citizens and reacted merely by rebranding
ISDS much the same way that “Shell-Shock” is now “Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder”. Same thing, softer tone.
We are all under the impression that the EU and US
(Britain included) have fully functioning judicial systems. If so, why
is an unaccountable system of private lawyers, working for law firms
with close connections to investors, acting in secret with no appeal
process necessary? Not only is it not necessary, it risks obvious
conflicts of interest whilst undermining the rights of a sovereign state
and its citizens. ISDS and its rebranded version (ICS) are
undemocratic, discriminatory to domestic small and medium sized
businesses and gives foreign investors the right to challenge equality,
freedom and justice.
(Britain included) have fully functioning judicial systems. If so, why
is an unaccountable system of private lawyers, working for law firms
with close connections to investors, acting in secret with no appeal
process necessary? Not only is it not necessary, it risks obvious
conflicts of interest whilst undermining the rights of a sovereign state
and its citizens. ISDS and its rebranded version (ICS) are
undemocratic, discriminatory to domestic small and medium sized
businesses and gives foreign investors the right to challenge equality,
freedom and justice.
As Global Justice puts it – “TTIP
is less of a negotiation about trade and more of a full frontal attack
on society by transnational corporations wishing to impose their will on
people both sides of the Atlantic.”
is less of a negotiation about trade and more of a full frontal attack
on society by transnational corporations wishing to impose their will on
people both sides of the Atlantic.”
To explain this in more detail here is the take of Corporate Europe Observatory.
Zombie attack! TTIP corporate super rights come back from the dead
The European Commission’s “new”
investor protection proposal brings the same controversial corporate
super rights back from the dead according to a new report by Corporate Europe Observatory and 16 other organisations1.
The study’s release comes just before talks on this controversial issue
resume in Brussels for the first time after a two year halt.
“The zombie ISDS – rebranded as ICS, rights for corporations to sue states refuse to die” shows how the push for foreign investor privileges in EU trade talks such as the proposed EU-US TTIP2deal
continues as the Commission attempts to rebrand the politically
untenable investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) as an “Investment
Court System” (ICS). An unprecedented Europe-wide controversy over the
democratic threat posed by ISDS led to last autumn’s rebranding of ISDS
as ICS in an attempt to get around the enormous public opposition to
legal privileges for multinational corporations.
However, the report shows that under ICS, liability and financial
risks would multiply for EU member states as 19 more EU countries could
directly be sued by US investors, compared to only nine with an
investment treaty with the US today. Over 47,000 companies would be
newly empowered to sue (compared to around 4,500 today) and TTIP could
invite the launch of nearly 900 US investor lawsuits against EU
countries as opposed to 9 claims known under existing treaties.
The report also includes a case study on the stunning US$15 billion
damages claim against US President Obama’s rejection of the
controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline by Canadian pipeline developer
TransCanada.3
It shows that TransCanada’s lawsuit – like other investor claims
against measures to protect health, the environment and other public
interests – would be perfectly possible under the ICS as it includes the
same far-reaching investor rights relied upon by TransCanada in its
claim against the US.
Pia Eberhardt, Corporate Europe Observatory:
“Like a zombie back from the dead, for the first time in two
years ISDS will be back on the TTIP negotiation agenda next week. But
what the Commission proposes is exactly what people have already
rejected: extreme privileges for corporations, which will empower them
to claim billions in compensation when laws and regulations undercut
their ability to make money. The egregious investor attacks against the
public interest, which have provoked public opposition to ISDS would be
perfectly possible under the new Commission proposal.”
