Free Trade Faults: Europeans Fear Wave of Litigation from US Firms

[unhappycamper]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/eu-fears-ttif-free-trade-agreement-could-spur-litigation-a-1015013.html

With broad public resistance and a European Parliament majority against it, EU officials are rethinking their positions on the proposed free-trade agreement with Washington. Many fear investor protection rules will wreak havoc on national laws.

Free Trade Faults: Europeans Fear Wave of Litigation from US Firms
By Christoph Pauly
January 26, 2015 – 04:22 PM

When Bernd Lange talks about the advantages of a free trade agreement with the US, he often cites the example of the VW bus. The hippy favorite has been the target of a 25 percent tariff since 1964, a punitive move after the European Economic Community raised levies on imported chicken, shutting the Americans out of the market. Sales have been hampered for decades as a result. But if the levy were significantly reduced, its price tag would plunge.

Lange is a classic car enthusiast -- and the chair of the European Parliament Committee on International Trade, which focuses on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) treaty. But despite the possible benefits for Volkswagen, the Social Democrat has had little choice but to emphasize the negative aspects of TTIP during his public appearances. In Europe's leading exporting nation, broad swathes of the population are opposed to the free trade agreement. You can even find anti-TTIP flyers in many churches.

The main sticking point is special rights given to investors, who would be able to challenge countries in special international dispute settlement panels that bypass national courts. It's a pill that even those who believe in the deal are having difficulty swallowing. Some 145,000 European citizens voiced their disapproval in a "public consultation" undertaken by the European Commission, with many expressing fear that US companies might seek to overturn EU laws on genetic engineering, environmental protection and food quality.

"This is indeed a very toxic issue," European Commissioner Cecelia Malmström, who is leading negotiations with the Americans, admitted last fall. But rather than addressing the widespread criticism, it instead appears she is playing for time.

[Demeter]

1. As well they should

because the urge to sue your way to profits has already been amply demonstrated...

NAFTA's Chapter 11 Makes Canada Most-Sued Country Under Free Trade Tribunals

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/01/14/canada-sued-investor-state-dispute-ccpa_n_6471460.html

Canada is the most-sued country under the North American Free Trade Agreement and a majority of the disputes involve investors challenging the country’s environmental laws, according to a new study.

The study from the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) found that more than 70 per cent of claims since 2005 have been brought against Canada, and the number of challenges under a controversial settlement clause is rising sharply.

The investor-state dispute settlement mechanism contained in NAFTA’s chapter 11 grants investors the right to sue foreign governments without first pursuing legal action in the country’s court systems, in order to protect foreign investors from discrimination. Drafters of the 1994 treaty included the provision to protect U.S. and Canadian investors against corruption in Mexican courts.

Critics argue that the mechanism limits governments from enacting policies on legitimate public concerns such as the environment and labour or human rights, and that negotiations are often carried out in secret. The CCPA believes the federal government’s strong commitment to Chapter 11 and its willingness to settle and compensate claimants is encouraging more cases against Canada. There were 12 cases brought against Canada from 1995 to 2005, while in the decade since there have been 23. The 35 claims brought against Canada comprise 45 per cent of the total number of claims under NAFTA. That’s significantly more than Mexico’s 22 or the 20 brought against the U.S. Canada has lost or settled six claims paying a total of $170 million in damages, while Mexico has lost five cases and paid out $204 million. The U.S.,meanwhile, has won 11 cases and has never lost a NAFTA investor-state case.

“Thanks to NAFTA chapter 11, Canada has now been sued more times through investor-state dispute settlement than any other developed country in the world,” said Scott Sinclair, who authored the study

....

ISDS: The devil in the trade deal

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/isds-the-devil-in-the-trade-deal/5734490

A common provision allowing foreign investors to sue host governments has become a ticking time bomb inside trade agreements like the soon to be signed Trans Pacific Partnership. Some countries are now refusing to agree to the provision and are questioning its legal legitimacy...There’s one standard provision most expect to end up in the final text; it’s called investor state dispute settlement, or ISDS. It enables foreign investors from TPP states to sue the governments who sign up to it if those governments act in a way that harms their interests.

What could harm a company’s interests? It could be something straightforward, like a government nationalising a factory. Increasingly, however, cases are being launched against government regulations and policies.

‘What has happened, in my view, is an expansion of the field well beyond the contemplation of those who originally designed it,’ says Toby Landau, a leading arbitration lawyer who works with ISDS.

‘The kinds of cases are expanding in terms of scope. They are covering all forms of governmental activity wherever that activity might have an adverse impact on a foreign investment, for example cigarette packaging, regulation of carbon emissions, nuclear policy and taxation.’ MORE

US firms could make billions from UK via secret tribunals

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/us-firms-could-make-billions-from-uk-via-secret-tribunals-9785924.html



Britain faces a real risk of being ordered to pay vast sums to US multinationals under the controversial TTIP trade deal being negotiated between Washington and the EU, an analysis of similar agreements has revealed.

The Government has repeatedly played down concerns that secret tribunals established by TTIP will lead to large numbers of American corporations suing the UK in trade disputes.

But United Nations figures uncovered by The Independent show that US companies have made billions of dollars by suing other governments nearly 130 times in the past 15 years under similar free-trade agreements....

THAT'S NOT A BUG, IT'S A FEATURE!

[djean111]

2. Damned right they should fear this. That's the fucking PLAN, to sue.

I will not support or vote for anyone who votes for or champions the TTP or TTIP.

THERE is my pledge, people who yammer about pledges. Non-negotiable. Not a "one issue" thing, either.

[pscot]

3. "This is indeed a very toxic issue"

[magical thyme]

4. I'm dreading Nestle suing the state of Maine in an international tribunal

which would force us to hand over our water in exchange for a few minimum wage jobs. They already tried suing one tiny village after another trying to steal our water. Fuck them.

Fuck TTIP. Fuck TTP. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

[Art_from_Ark]

5. That just boggles my mind

A corporation being able to sue a state in a foreign country for rights to water to which it should have no valid claim whatsoever

[magical thyme]

6. Nestle's CEO is on record as saying there is no human right to water

and that water should be privatized and sold.

They bought Poland Springs some years ago. And wanted to increase the amount of water they pull from our aquifer through new wells, to bottle and sell. They would drain it dry and force us to buy it back if they could.

And there's DUer that supports them, stating it would create well-paying jobs Like a million people should lose control of our water so that a few people could make a little more money and Nestle corporation clean up.

They claimed in court that we don't own the water; therefore they should be allowed to drill more wells and take it. They lost over and over again and eventually gave it up. Apparently per another DUer, Florida's governor sold out and they're draining off their water instead.

So who do you think an international, corporate tribunal would side with if Nestle claimed we were hurting their profits by denying the full access to our water?

[Art_from_Ark]

7. Wow, that's crazy

I first heard about Nestle's way of doing business back in '70s when there was the infant formula controversy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestlé_boycott

I didn't want to believe it at the time because my image of the company was the Nestle Quick Rabbit. Yeah, I was still pretty naive back then.

I then thought that the boycott made Nestle clean up its act. Apparently not.