Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
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.
Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
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.