The Trans-Pacific Partnership

[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.