Should corporations be able to sue countries for loss of profits?

1. 88

   The Dirt Farmerposted 7 years ago

   "Since 2000, hundreds of foreign investors have sued more than half of the world’s countries, claiming damages for a wide range of government actions that they say have threatened their profits" (The Guardian 2015).
   
   RecentlyTransCanada  filed 2 lawsuits against the US because Obama killed the Keystone Pipeline. Philip Morris has sued a number of countries, including Uruguay, for monetary compensation due to government measures that discourage smoking & impact the company's profits.
   
   What do you think about these companies' actions & their rights through international trade agreements to sue?

   replyreport
   1. 70

      rhamsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The TPP which Obama is pushing through in the upcoming lame duck session will make those lawsuits look like child's play. What is even worse is that the mediators will be corporate appointed stooges who have no promise of impartiality as a judge would hearing the case. Guess who wins? The pay offs and being worked out now with Congress.

      replyreport
      1. 88

         The Dirt Farmerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, we must work hard as both individuals and members of groups to see that the TPP is a no-go.

         replyreport
2. 67

   ptosisposted 7 years ago

   Fifteen years ago, a minor niche  within the legal business, hundreds of foreign investors have sued more than half of the world’s countries, claiming damages for a wide range of government actions that they say have threatened their profits.
   
   
   
   The International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and similar venues in London, Paris, Hong Kong, the Hague, et al is where  a foreign investor can force a government to change its laws to please the investor as opposed to the investor complying with the laws they find in the country. The sums awarded in damages are so vast that investment funds have taken notice: corporations’ claims against states are now seen as assets that can be invested in or used as leverage to secure multimillion-dollar loans.  - https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 … ttip-icsid
   
   
   ICSID registered 80 cases during the first 34 years of its existence, from 1966 to 2000. In the 14 years since then, it has registered 418, including nearly 200 cases currently in arbitration. In the last decade, the number of cases involving oil, gas, and mining companies has dramatically increased. Today, close to half of cases pending before ICSID tribunals are related to natural resource disputes.  There is no appeal process at ICSID, only an annulment process through which the procedural legitimacy of the tribunal can be questioned. Governments and companies alike in recent years have begun urging ICSID to create an appellate process.- https://www.beaconreader.com/climate-co … ental-laws
   
   
   
   
   So why do countries accept trade deals with this blatantly pro-corporate mechanism? The argument goes that without this provision, there would be a serious lack of foreign investment. There may be some truth to this, but other cases show that it is quite exaggerated. Brazil, for example, has never agreed to a trade deal with ISDS provision, and they continue to receive plenty of foreign investment.  Private corporations should not have the option of suing a nation whenever they feel like a rule or law has effected their profit rate. This is simply a part of doing business; an inherent aspect of capitalism. Investing is never risk-free; there are natural, social, and political changes that could always hurt an investment. More importantly, when a company’s product is hurting people or the environment, government has the right and obligation to stop it. - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/2/11 … For-Profit
   
   For USA,
   15 cases as respondent state
   138 cases as home state
   
   https://icsid.worldbank.org/apps/ICSIaD … fault.aspx
   
   
   http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/unc … rules.html
   
   
   http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/ISDSg]
   
   
   
   
   
   Tell your Congressional representatives: by visiting https://act.350.org/sign/congress-tpp/
   
   I oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership because it is a threat to our climate and our democracy. Vote NO on Fast Track legislation that would allow this bad deal to move forward.

   replyreport
   1. 88

      The Dirt Farmerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for your wonderful response, especially the links.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         You're welcome.  Didn't really research it until your post.  Sometimes I need a kick in the side of the head to start thinking about what really pisses me off in this world - other than Crumpton
         

         replyreport
         1. 88

            The Dirt Farmerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Did you watch Bernie's talk this past week? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3LC8kYe0QM
            As always, he is inspiring as he tries to work, and motivate others to work, within the system.

            replyreport
            1. 67

               ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               nah, busy making my hobo sign
               

               replyreport
               1. 88

                  The Dirt Farmerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  OMG that made me laugh so hard. Cheers, Jill

                  replyreport