The Trans-Pacific Partnership

[Greyblades]

So, I'm surprised that this hasnt come up yet.

[Beskar]

You are forgetting the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership).

Have fun reading on that too.

[Brenus]

That is because it is secret. The aim is to create a super Company of India, in which big companies will be allowed to ignore democracy and rules of laws if they go against them making money, as stupid Health & Safety rules, work for children and other leftist inventions to stop pillaging and exploiting the weakest.
They however should be careful.

[Papewaio]

Yes push to hard and even the Kiwi's will side with the French Foreign Legion and help with the revolution for the people.

[Hooahguy]

If the bit Ive been hearing about how corporations will be able to sue countries over their own laws is true, then its very, very concerning.

[Husar]

If the bit Ive been hearing about how corporations will be able to sue countries over their own laws is true, then its very, very concerning.

This.

But not only this, there is also the simple fact that they make it incredibly hard to even read the documents and then they call the ones opposing them conspiracy theorists or so. Well, if there is no conspiracy, put the trade agreements on the internet, or do you have something to hide? It's a ridiculous process and it does actually seem to be yet another corporate attempt at undermining democracy as the videos say.

John Oliver had this case where big tobacco would sue small countries that can't afford an expensive process in order to revoke anti-smoking laws. These secret private courts seem like a logical extension of that and billionaires ruining Argentina and other countries because they can. So I don't really think it's a conspiracy theory and rather an actual conspiracy. If not there should be no problem releasing the contracts officially. Surely the Iran nuclear deal that you can read entirely on the internet is a more sensitive document than a supposedly harmless trade agreement?

[Sarmatian]

If the bit Ive been hearing about how corporations will be able to sue countries over their own laws is true, then its very, very concerning.

That is nothing new. If you're setting up a multilateral long-term agreement, there needs to be a way to make sure it is enforced. Creating a separate court to do that makes sense.

That is a way for countries, corporations and people to protect their interest. For instance, I own a company in New Zealand which makes mobile phones and I want access to US market. Apple uses its power and influence to limit my access. I can then turn to a court to demand that full access is given.

Corporations are able to sue countries already, nothing new there.

From what little I've been able to gather from these videos, Americans have nothing to fear, because everyone will have to adapt the American rules when it comes to copyright and intellectual property.

[Montmorency]

I can then turn to a court to demand that full access is given.

Regardless of how a legislature comes to develop and pass its laws, perhaps international courts should not have any authority to make or break those laws on the basis of multinational corporations and their arguments on market access and competition.

Of course it's nothing new, but I don't think there would be a comparison in terms of de jure judicial authority set in place against national sovereignty.

If one criticizes EU governance, then how could one feel about an EU government operating from, for example, China?

[Sarmatian]

If one criticizes EU governance, then how could one feel about an EU government operating from, for example, China?

It's not a valid comparison.

Courts would be set up by those involved in the agreement and would deal with everything related to the agreement, ie. protecting the rights of everyone involved and ensuring that everyone follows the rules.

Valid comparison would be that both France and Germany have to follow the verdict of an EU court.

In practice, the sanctions for not obeying a ruling from such a court are virtually non existent. That court has no means to enforce its ruling (it can't order the arrest of the US), and its authority comes from the fact that everyone agrees to respect its authority. At worst, a country may be expelled from the agreement.

Regardless of how a legislature comes to develop and pass its laws, perhaps international courts should not have any authority to make or break those laws on the basis of multinational corporations and their arguments on market access and competition.

Those courts wouldn't have the authority to "make or break the laws", they would only deal with stuff that is connected with the agreement. That is the standard practice.

A nation isn't (shouldn't be) able to sign international agreements in conflict with its own laws and constitution. It one nation wants to, in an ideal world it would change those domestic laws in conflict with the international treaty it wants to be a part of.

In short, I don't see what the fuss is about. Granted, there may be details that need addressing, but the outline (which seems to be attacked) is the standard international practice that has been in operation for a very long time already.

[Montmorency]

You have it upside-down.

the standard international practice that has been in operation for a very long time already.

is the outline that is being criticized, and the TPP is the "detail" or latest iteration.

[Sarmatian]

is the outline that is being criticized, and the TPP is the "detail" or latest iteration.

Are you honestly arguing that international agreements should be "everyone should do whatever the **** they want"?

You don't like the secrecy of it? Fine, criticize it.
You don't like some aspects of it? Fine, criticize it.

But, don't argue the basic principal of a contract - you enter into one and you must honour it and there should a legal way to enforce that. It works the same for persons, corporations and states.

[Montmorency]

Not quite. Here I return to the EU analogy.

The EU and associated organizations provide for economic mediation between the European states - directly. For all its faults and biases, it is a national project.

Meanwhile, trade associations like NAFTA or this TPP, aside from reducing tariffs and other trade barriers, provide a framework for arbitrating between states and investing corporations.

I disagree with it in principle. States and extra/multinational corporations deal and arbitrate all the time, but for our context it is much better if corporate disputes be arbitrated directly between governments, rather than such bodies as are set up for the specific purpose.

[Fragony]

Nobody knows about it because quality-media doesn't inform, cheer-monkeys they are. Blogs can't be trusted but they are mostly right. This treaty is sneaked in by the ultra-undemocratic EU because they know we are not going to like it.

[Husar]

Nobody knows about it because quality-media doesn't inform, cheer-monkeys they are. Blogs can't be trusted but they are mostly right. This treaty is sneaked in by the ultra-undemocratic EU because they know we are not going to like it.

I don't think the EU is sneaking in TPP.

As for whether the secret courts are evil or not, if they can already use them or sue governments in normal courts, why do they need the treaty about secret private courts in the first place? Another reason I do not like it is that these secret private courts are usually made up of a majority of businessmen, they operate in secrecy and they will apparently not apply on a contract a government makes with one company but all companies. I simply see no reason to trust these courts over a normal court of the kind we already have, one where the rulings are open and that also doesn't have its own army to enforce anything.

And besides, part of my earlier complaint was that corporations already screw over governments way more often than they should IMO. So even if this just ensures a continuation of current developments it's a bad thing. I don't think it is right that a corporation can threaten to ruin a country financially if the country does not revoke certain laws. It overrides the decisions of the politicians the people voted for and therefore undermines democracy.
This also sets a principle that the people and their representatives somehow have to serve the interests of the corporations when corporations should be there to serve the needs and interests of the people. It's a perversion of all the things our forefathers went on strike and sometimes died for.

[Fragony]

I don't think the EU is sneaking in TPP.

As for whether the secret courts are evil or not, if they can already use them or sue governments in normal courts, why do they need the treaty about secret private courts in the first place? Another reason I do not like it is that these secret private courts are usually made up of a majority of businessmen, they operate in secrecy and they will apparently not apply on a contract a government makes with one company but all companies. I simply see no reason to trust these courts over a normal court of the kind we already have, one where the rulings are open and that also doesn't have its own army to enforce anything.

And besides, part of my earlier complaint was that corporations already screw over governments way more often than they should IMO. So even if this just ensures a continuation of current developments it's a bad thing. I don't think it is right that a corporation can threaten to ruin a country financially if the country does not revoke certain laws. It overrides the decisions of the politicians the people voted for and therefore undermines democracy.
This also sets a principle that the people and their representatives somehow have to serve the interests of the corporations when corporations should be there to serve the needs and interests of the people. It's a perversion of all the things our forefathers went on strike and sometimes died for.

At least you know what this treaty means, a lot do not. It should be all over the headlines but quality-media just happens to be quality-media, nothing more than bedtimestories-reading moms

[HopAlongBunny]

I just find it interesting that what little I hear about it, are appeals to push it through; can we read it first? No need.; what does it say? Nevermind. When does it come up for debate? Never.
Even NAFTA was published before getting approval. While I doubt many people actually read the thing, at least it was available.

[Fragony]

I just find it interesting that what little I hear about it, are appeals to push it through; can we read it first? No need.; what does it say? Nevermind. When does it come up for debate? Never.
Even NAFTA was published before getting approval. While I doubt many people actually read the thing, at least it was available.

That's why I prefer blogs, much faster, you can always be wrong afterwards and usually you arre, but sometimes not

[Sarmatian]

Not quite. Here I return to the EU analogy.

The EU and associated organizations provide for economic mediation between the European states - directly. For all its faults and biases, it is a national project.

Not necessarily.

In such instances, mediation is tried first, and usually disputes are solved by a gentlemanly agreement, but a party could always take it up to court.

A recent example, a few weeks ago due to some migrant/refugees issue I don't want to go in now, Croatia closed the border with Serbia. That meant closing of an international road, which is a violation in and of itself, but more importantly, it violated the SSA Serbia signed with EU, which Croatia became bound by the moment it became an EU member. In response, Serbia closed the border with Croatia. After a few days, EU put pressure on Croatia, Croatia opened the border and Serbia removed its countermeasure. Now, Croatia could be sued in theory by Serbia, the citizens or companies who lost money because Croatian decision was a violation of international law and SSA agreement.

I disagree with it in principle. States and extra/multinational corporations deal and arbitrate all the time, but for our context it is much better if corporate disputes be arbitrated directly between governments, rather than such bodies as are set up for the specific purpose.

As for whether the secret courts are evil or not, if they can already use them or sue governments in normal courts, why do they need the treaty about secret private courts in the first place? Another reason I do not like it is that these secret private courts are usually made up of a majority of businessmen, they operate in secrecy and they will apparently not apply on a contract a government makes with one company but all companies. I simply see no reason to trust these courts over a normal court of the kind we already have, one where the rulings are open and that also doesn't have its own army to enforce anything.

It's easier if answer both of these.

1) It is very hard to arbitrate between that many members bilaterally. Even if it weren't, it creates complications, because, in this case, a decision agreed between US and Chile wouldn't cover Australia. It would lead to weird result where the rules for trade between US and Chile could be different to Chile and Australia. So, Australia would either have to automatically abide by a decision reached without its input or involvement, or you would have to create another process involving US and Australia and Chile and Australia. Now imagine the chaos if the decision reached in direct talks between Chile and Australia is different than the one reached by US and Chile. And you'd have to do that for every single member.

2) Independent courts protect the rights of smaller nations in the agreement. What chance could Chile have against US in bilateral dispute? Practically none. Independent courts offer them assurances their right and interests would be respected within the agreement, and that the bigger fishes would dominate/abuse the agreement.

3) Those are not "secret courts". You don't know them now, but they will most certainly be public after they are set up.

4) Civil courts usually aren't the best choice to deal with that sort of stuff (international disputes). Letting them handle it would lead to a much higher chance of wrong decisions, it would be much more expensive and much more inefficient. Much better to set up a specialist court to deal with anything pertaining the agreement.

[Husar]

It's easier if answer both of these.

1) It is very hard to arbitrate between that many members bilaterally. Even if it weren't, it creates complications, because, in this case, a decision agreed between US and Chile wouldn't cover Australia. It would lead to weird result where the rules for trade between US and Chile could be different to Chile and Australia. So, Australia would either have to automatically abide by a decision reached without its input or involvement, or you would have to create another process involving US and Australia and Chile and Australia. Now imagine the chaos if the decision reached in direct talks between Chile and Australia is different than the one reached by US and Chile. And you'd have to do that for every single member.

2) Independent courts protect the rights of smaller nations in the agreement. What chance could Chile have against US in bilateral dispute? Practically none. Independent courts offer them assurances their right and interests would be respected within the agreement, and that the bigger fishes would dominate/abuse the agreement.

3) Those are not "secret courts". You don't know them now, but they will most certainly be public after they are set up.

4) Civil courts usually aren't the best choice to deal with that sort of stuff (international disputes). Letting them handle it would lead to a much higher chance of wrong decisions, it would be much more expensive and much more inefficient. Much better to set up a specialist court to deal with anything pertaining the agreement.

Eh, well, most of the information I heard, and most of it comes from organizations that are against it because the ones for it do not like to release any info apparently (not my fault), says that these courts will be operated by businesses, something like each party chooses a judge, one is chosen by the court-"company" or so and then they come to a judgement but the entire process is secret. Now you may tell me that this is not correct, but why is it apparently so hard to get info about what is correct? Why is all the info I get about it without searching like a madman the one that says it's a really bad idea? The courts may be known but each case will be decided by them in secrecy. We also know the Pfizer court, but can you name all the decisions and ensure me they were reached according to sufficient judicial standards? Is it enough to know that the court exists?

And why can't these courts be international courts such as the one we have for human rights etc.? These work fine, no? Convenience and expense are bad excuses, having a dictator is also more convenient and cheaper than having to vote every two to four years.
An international court could cover all trade between all the nations involved, but it should be run by the governments involved and not by businesses. I don't care if it's cheaper for corporations or governments to just let the corporations screw me over in biased courts.

And just in case this is exactly what they want to set up, why is this not properly communicated? Instead there are secret meetings and everybody who comes out says he is not allowed to comment on anything. You can't tell me that something completely harmless requires this much secrecy.

Oh and this is like the most official source you can get in Germany: http://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/ttip-167.html

Ultra-mainstream media and they cover the pros and contras:

+ investment protection
+ faster handling of cases
+ example for future treaties (for example with countries like China that do not have western-style courts)

- not transparent, cases can be processed in secrecy
- no appeals, once a decision is reached, it's final
- one-sided, only corporations can sue states, not the other way around, so if anyone pays, it's always the government/taxpayer
- limited legislation, because governments may not dare to release harsher pollution restrictions for fear of getting sued by corporations who claim it endangers their investment/profit

The last two are especially nice.

[Sarmatian]

I'm not saying there isn't anything to be unhappy about, but so far, this is the usual scaremongering that is always happening. International Arbitration has been in use for a very long time already, and, although there are pros and cons to it, the pros outweigh the con significantly.

Let's say I have a business worth a few millions in Chile and I'm in dispute with a giant like Apple - without this, I'd have to go to US to sue Apple (I could do it in Chile, but that would be unenforceable in US). If I go with the traditional system in the US, I'm out of money before it's done. If I go international tribunal, I present my case to experts, it's cheap and I get a binding decision right away, with no chance of appeal. This kind of system protects smaller businesses, makes sure the field is level for all, and makes it cheap and efficient for everyone to argue their case.

So, there may be some shady aspects, but so far, everything I've heard is just your everyday International Arbitration.

International arbitration is a leading method for resolving disputes arising from international commercial agreements and other international relationships. As with arbitration generally, international arbitration is a creation of contract, i.e., the parties' decision to submit disputes to binding resolution by one or more arbitrators selected by or on behalf of the parties and applying adjudicatory procedures, usually by including a provision for the arbitration of future disputes in their contract.[1] The practice of international arbitration has developed so as to allow parties from different legal and cultural backgrounds to resolve their disputes, generally without the formalities of their respective legal systems.

In this particular case, the nation with most to lose is actually the US. They generally don't like level playing fields, and I wouldn't be surprised if the international arbitration aspect was pushed by other members of the agreement to have a way to ensure US wouldn't dominate TPP through the sheer size of their economy.

[Montmorency]

Again, you've got it upside-down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invest...ute_settlement

[Sarmatian]

Again, you've got it upside-down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invest...ute_settlement

How is that different from what I've been talking about?

That's a specific and concrete example of the principle and practice I've been talking about.

[Montmorency]

I've been pointing out a distinction between:

A. Interstate arbitration or negotiation over trade disputes, tariffs, foreign investment, and so on

B. A corporation (i.e. "investor") contesting the domestic legal practices or standards of a state in a non-state (i.e. international) venue.

It's really quite simple. If State A wants State B to change their laws such that investors from State A or corporations affiliated with State A can competitively enter State B's market, then that is a state-state issue. Same thing for border traffic and control, standards for quality, measurement, reporting, etc.

Crucially for our discussion, if Corporation A wants to claim that State B is violating its own laws or the conventions of a trade agreement/organization to which State B is party/signatory, then a specialized international court does indeed make sense.

However, if Corporation A wants State B to change its laws in such a way as to benefit Corporation A, then there should never be any judicial recourse, in any venue. In case you have forgotten, corporations already have the capacity to create political lobbies advocating for that very goal, and that should be sufficient.

[Sarmatian]

It's really quite simple. If State A wants State B to change their laws such that investors from State A or corporations affiliated with State A can competitively enter State B's market, then that is a state-state issue. Same thing for border traffic and control, standards for quality, measurement, reporting, etc.

Crucially for our discussion, if Corporation A wants to claim that State B is violating its own laws or the conventions of a trade agreement/organization to which State B is party/signatory, then a specialized international court does indeed make sense.

That is what I've been saying. That is the normal practice in these situations. The states create a framework to which they all agree and set up a separate court to enforce that for all members.

So far, I haven't seen anything to suggest that corporation will have powers to change domestic laws for their own purposes, unless it is in conflict with the agreement. For instance, if TPP specifies free trade of all goods between member nations, a state couldn't create a law to impose tariffs on some goods. In that case, corporations and/or other countries and individuals would have the right to sue and demand the withdrawal of such a law, or ultimately, force the rogue nation out, if all else fails. Again, standard international practice.

It's simple really - we all play by the same rules. If you don't accept that, you don't get to play.

[Fisherking]

I think the point missed by most is who the agreement serves.

It is not a free trade agreement. It places many restrictions on trade and requires them to place more proprietary measures in place to the benefit of huge multination corporations.

The agreement was hammered out between multinational corporations and trade representatives from the various countries. In many cases those trade representatives were drawn from some of those very same corporations before being appointed as negotiators.

The secrecy serves no purpose other than to prevent the public debate of the agreement because it would likely anger the public and not favour the corporate position.

We already see corporations buying government officials and writing laws to be presented for legislative votes. This is just more of the same on an international scale.

There is no evidence that the agreement offers any public benefit or serves the interests of the people. Only the corporate bottom line.

[Papewaio]

I don't understand how an international agreement can be secret yet expect people to obey it?

The definition of good government during peacetime is transparency and accountability.

Secret courts are neither and no corporation should be imbued with powers that outrank the sovereignty of a nation.

[CrossLOPER]

no corporation should be imbued with powers that outrank the sovereignty of a nation.

Dude, shut up, we are at the cusp of a Blade Runner reality.

[Risasi]

...and they will succeed.


Current political climate = oligarchy. It's just the ruling few are corporations. It's too late to stop it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

...and they will succeed.


Current political climate = oligarchy. It's just the ruling few are corporations. It's too late to stop it.

This is the truth. Everyone better start signing up for Uber and pump out cheap pop culture shit to sell on Etsy. It's the new economy.

[Sarmatian]

I don't understand how an international agreement can be secret yet expect people to obey it?

The definition of good government during peacetime is transparency and accountability.

Secret courts are neither and no corporation should be imbued with powers that outrank the sovereignty of a nation.

Yes, but there are limits in everything. If you get employed, you sign a contract with your employer. He expects you to do 8h work every day. If you walk out during work time and get fired, you can not sue your employer for denying you your freedom of movement. It doesn't mean that the state is putting corporation ahead of the individual.

There's not much difference with international agreements.