Podcasts about investor state dispute settlement

Senator Crapo and Senator Wyden sent a letter to President Biden on January 14th criticizing USTR's “lack of transparency and consultation regarding its efforts to negotiate binding interpretations of congressionally approved trade agreements.”  Listen to today's Two Minutes in Trade for more information on this topic.  

On this week's episode of Trade Guys, we'll discuss House lawmakers' call for the removal of CAFTA-DR's investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, the trade consequences of the Baltimore bridge collapse, and China's WTO complaint concerning U.S. electric vehicle subsidies.

Kyla Tienhaara is an Assistant Professor in the School of Environmental Studies and the Department of Global Development Studies at Queen's University, Canada and a Visiting Fellow at the School of Regulation and Global Governance, Australian National University. She's the author of Green Keynesianism and the Global Financial Crisis and the co-editor of the Routledge Handbook on the Green New Deal, which is a book that I find absolutely essential for thinking about the potential social benefits of decarbonizing the economy and rethinking growth in our time of climate breakdown. She's also one of the few researchers looking closely at the function of Investor State Dispute Settlement as an international legal apparatus that largely protects investors from the pushback they might receive from states. There's no way I could quickly summarize what this work deciphers, in terms of this obscure global legal structure, which not a lot of people I've spoken with have any knowledge about. They might understand in the abstract that there is a system of global capitalism that is protected by the codification of laws that largely protect profits and private investment over the safety or autonomy of communities, but this is the actual system that serves that. And Kyla is uniquely insightful about how it works and what it is set up to prevent. I wanted to underscore, at the top here, that we engage, in this conversation, with the concepts of utopianism and pragmatism in climate action. That's no a disclaimer so much as an invitation to ask yourself where you sit in relation to this idea that abolishing fossil energy is utopian. Or to kind of request that you sit with the question of whether it is too much to ask that the economy be democratized or energy be regarded as a source of social wealth rather than a source of capital. It's maybe worth thinking, too, about why it is the case that there is legally-binding international law that protects fossil fuel companies from reprisal, but no binding law to protect the planet from the forces that are exacerbating our mounting climate emergency. What history precedes this moment where it is primarily rich countries that benefit from existing laws and international treaties, while poor countries get poorer? And what mechanisms or modes of resistance exist so that we can funnel our collective outrage at these legally sanctioned systems of upholding inequality into something real?

Neocolonialism, Democratic Deficits and Regulatory Chill of the Investor State Dispute Settlement MechanismDiscussion with Lisa Sachs on the regulatory chill and democratic deficit of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanism (ISDS). We discuss the structural issues of ISDS, including conflict of interest, lack of transparency and lack of accountability as well as its neocolonial origins and entrenchment. We also discuss the proliferation of bilateral and multilateral investment treaties, the expanding investor protections of international investment law, treaty shopping and how ISDS is distorting the investment climate in favor of fossil fuels. Additionally, we discuss the fragmentation of international law and the need to have holistic international jurisprudence and governance.For More Info:https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1070&context=sustainable_investment_staffpubshttps://ccsi.columbia.edu/content/primer-international-investment-treaties-and-investor-state-dispute-settlementhttps://ccsi.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/docs/publications/fJohnsonetal58-1.pdfhttps://ccsi.columbia.edu/content/investment-law-policyhttps://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/ICSID%20Convention%20English.pdfhttps://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlementhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14693062.2022.2153102?journalCode=tcpo20https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2697555https://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/investment-policy/4th-Annual-Conference-on-Investment-Treaties-agenda.pdfhttps://policyalternatives.ca/ontheoffensivehttps://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/diaepcbinf2019d3_en.pdfhttps://digitallibrary.un.org/record/803449?ln=enhttps://alexandra-arneri.medium.com/that-my-keen-knife-see-not-the-wound-it-makes-part-ii-why-loot-when-you-can-lend-the-violence-of-be65d7e16c9d

Lecture summary: International economic law binds the state in relation to markets – most prominently with respect to cross-border trade in goods and services (trade) and the cross-border flow of capital (investment). The core tension to be managed in treaty design involves the balance between economic disciplines and the sovereign's reserved regulatory authority – between liberalization and policy space. The trade regime has been fairly successful in striking this balance, while the investment regime has been less so. As a result, a natural tendency among reformers has been to look to trade for lessons and solutions to the challenges of investment treaties. This lecture considers why mechanisms that have worked in the former context have proven unworkable in the latter, and what that means for design going forward.Both the trade and investment regimes preserve policy space through a process of justification at the dispute settlement stage. Policy justification is built into most trade agreements (and some investment treaties) through formal exceptions clauses. Even in the absence of such clauses, exceptions-style justification has informally penetrated both regimes through adjudicative reasoning and borrowing. This "exceptions paradigm" of justification has worked well in trade treaties, where it has been especially key to securing a workable balance in the WTO/GATT context – in a coherent way, on which actors can plan ex ante. But, where tried, the exceptions paradigm has not worked out in the investment regime. I argue that the difference lies in the institutions within which trade and investment rules and exceptions are embedded. This lecture compares the trade and investment regimes across three institutional nodes: (1) the nature of the right of action (public vs private); (2) the degree of judicial centralization (court system vs ad hoc arbitration); and (3) the available remedies (prospective injunctive relief vs retrospective damages). I suggest that it is trade law's public-oriented institutions that have made the exceptions clause workable – not the other way around. By contrast, investment law's private-oriented institutions make that system particularly inhospitable to exceptions-style justification.Julian Arato is a professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School. His scholarly expertise spans the areas of public international law, international economic law, and private law. Arato serves as a member of the board of editors of the American Journal of International Law. He is active in the governance of the American Society of International Law, having recently served on the executive council and as co-chair of the international economic law interest group. He also serves as chair of the Academic Forum on Investor-State Dispute Settlement and as a member of the Institute for Transnational Arbitration Academic Council. Since 2018, Arato has served as an observer delegate to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Working Group III (ISDS Reform).

Lecture summary: International economic law binds the state in relation to markets – most prominently with respect to cross-border trade in goods and services (trade) and the cross-border flow of capital (investment). The core tension to be managed in treaty design involves the balance between economic disciplines and the sovereign’s reserved regulatory authority – between liberalization and policy space. The trade regime has been fairly successful in striking this balance, while the investment regime has been less so. As a result, a natural tendency among reformers has been to look to trade for lessons and solutions to the challenges of investment treaties. This lecture considers why mechanisms that have worked in the former context have proven unworkable in the latter, and what that means for design going forward. Both the trade and investment regimes preserve policy space through a process of justification at the dispute settlement stage. Policy justification is built into most trade agreements (and some investment treaties) through formal exceptions clauses. Even in the absence of such clauses, exceptions-style justification has informally penetrated both regimes through adjudicative reasoning and borrowing. This "exceptions paradigm" of justification has worked well in trade treaties, where it has been especially key to securing a workable balance in the WTO/GATT context – in a coherent way, on which actors can plan ex ante. But, where tried, the exceptions paradigm has not worked out in the investment regime. I argue that the difference lies in the institutions within which trade and investment rules and exceptions are embedded. This lecture compares the trade and investment regimes across three institutional nodes: (1) the nature of the right of action (public vs private); (2) the degree of judicial centralization (court system vs ad hoc arbitration); and (3) the available remedies (prospective injunctive relief vs retrospective damages). I suggest that it is trade law's public-oriented institutions that have made the exceptions clause workable – not the other way around. By contrast, investment law's private-oriented institutions make that system particularly inhospitable to exceptions-style justification. Julian Arato is a professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School. His scholarly expertise spans the areas of public international law, international economic law, and private law. Arato serves as a member of the board of editors of the American Journal of International Law. He is active in the governance of the American Society of International Law, having recently served on the executive council and as co-chair of the international economic law interest group. He also serves as chair of the Academic Forum on Investor-State Dispute Settlement and as a member of the Institute for Transnational Arbitration Academic Council. Since 2018, Arato has served as an observer delegate to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Working Group III (ISDS Reform).

Lecture summary: International economic law binds the state in relation to markets – most prominently with respect to cross-border trade in goods and services (trade) and the cross-border flow of capital (investment). The core tension to be managed in treaty design involves the balance between economic disciplines and the sovereign's reserved regulatory authority – between liberalization and policy space. The trade regime has been fairly successful in striking this balance, while the investment regime has been less so. As a result, a natural tendency among reformers has been to look to trade for lessons and solutions to the challenges of investment treaties. This lecture considers why mechanisms that have worked in the former context have proven unworkable in the latter, and what that means for design going forward.Both the trade and investment regimes preserve policy space through a process of justification at the dispute settlement stage. Policy justification is built into most trade agreements (and some investment treaties) through formal exceptions clauses. Even in the absence of such clauses, exceptions-style justification has informally penetrated both regimes through adjudicative reasoning and borrowing. This "exceptions paradigm" of justification has worked well in trade treaties, where it has been especially key to securing a workable balance in the WTO/GATT context – in a coherent way, on which actors can plan ex ante. But, where tried, the exceptions paradigm has not worked out in the investment regime. I argue that the difference lies in the institutions within which trade and investment rules and exceptions are embedded. This lecture compares the trade and investment regimes across three institutional nodes: (1) the nature of the right of action (public vs private); (2) the degree of judicial centralization (court system vs ad hoc arbitration); and (3) the available remedies (prospective injunctive relief vs retrospective damages). I suggest that it is trade law's public-oriented institutions that have made the exceptions clause workable – not the other way around. By contrast, investment law's private-oriented institutions make that system particularly inhospitable to exceptions-style justification.Julian Arato is a professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School. His scholarly expertise spans the areas of public international law, international economic law, and private law. Arato serves as a member of the board of editors of the American Journal of International Law. He is active in the governance of the American Society of International Law, having recently served on the executive council and as co-chair of the international economic law interest group. He also serves as chair of the Academic Forum on Investor-State Dispute Settlement and as a member of the Institute for Transnational Arbitration Academic Council. Since 2018, Arato has served as an observer delegate to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Working Group III (ISDS Reform).

Lecture summary: International economic law binds the state in relation to markets – most prominently with respect to cross-border trade in goods and services (trade) and the cross-border flow of capital (investment). The core tension to be managed in treaty design involves the balance between economic disciplines and the sovereign's reserved regulatory authority – between liberalization and policy space. The trade regime has been fairly successful in striking this balance, while the investment regime has been less so. As a result, a natural tendency among reformers has been to look to trade for lessons and solutions to the challenges of investment treaties. This lecture considers why mechanisms that have worked in the former context have proven unworkable in the latter, and what that means for design going forward.Both the trade and investment regimes preserve policy space through a process of justification at the dispute settlement stage. Policy justification is built into most trade agreements (and some investment treaties) through formal exceptions clauses. Even in the absence of such clauses, exceptions-style justification has informally penetrated both regimes through adjudicative reasoning and borrowing. This "exceptions paradigm" of justification has worked well in trade treaties, where it has been especially key to securing a workable balance in the WTO/GATT context – in a coherent way, on which actors can plan ex ante. But, where tried, the exceptions paradigm has not worked out in the investment regime. I argue that the difference lies in the institutions within which trade and investment rules and exceptions are embedded. This lecture compares the trade and investment regimes across three institutional nodes: (1) the nature of the right of action (public vs private); (2) the degree of judicial centralization (court system vs ad hoc arbitration); and (3) the available remedies (prospective injunctive relief vs retrospective damages). I suggest that it is trade law's public-oriented institutions that have made the exceptions clause workable – not the other way around. By contrast, investment law's private-oriented institutions make that system particularly inhospitable to exceptions-style justification.Julian Arato is a professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School. His scholarly expertise spans the areas of public international law, international economic law, and private law. Arato serves as a member of the board of editors of the American Journal of International Law. He is active in the governance of the American Society of International Law, having recently served on the executive council and as co-chair of the international economic law interest group. He also serves as chair of the Academic Forum on Investor-State Dispute Settlement and as a member of the Institute for Transnational Arbitration Academic Council. Since 2018, Arato has served as an observer delegate to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Working Group III (ISDS Reform).

Queensland Young Lawyers (QYL) and the barristers at Level Twenty Seven Chambers curated a series of four CPDs spanning 2022 to provide young lawyers with knowledge essential to their role. The final installment ‘Disclosure' was facilitated by Sarah Spottiswood and Oliver Cook. Sarah and Oliver are barristers practising from Level Twenty Seven Chambers (Brisbane, Australia) but prior to commencing at the Bar they were solicitors in government departments and an international law firm respectively. They will draw from a deep understanding of the litigation process to highlight: 1. What disclosure is from a legal and technical perspective 2. The different obligations in Australia's State and Federal Courts 3. When disclosure is/not appropriate in litigation They also answer common questions about practical issues for those subject to disclosure obligations.Who should listen?All lawyers with litigation practices, especially those 1-5 PQE. PRESENTERSSarah Spottiswood (Barrister, Level Twenty Seven Chambers)Since coming to the Bar, Sarah has been instructed in a wide range of commercial disputes. Her practice spans a broad spectrum of industries, including aviation and transport, construction and infrastructure, finance, government, IT, property, environment and resources. With seven years' experience working as a solicitor in public law litigation for both the UK and Australian governments, Sarah draws on her experience in constitutional and administrative law cases. She has a significant background in international law, having advised a UK government department on international trade issues and represented the UK at the UNCITRAL Working Group on Investor-State Dispute Settlement.. Oliver Cook (Barrister, Level Twenty Seven Chambers)Advising and appearing for parties in a variety of sectors, including franchising, insurance, consumer protection, construction, government and insolvency in a wide range of commercial matters, Oliver draws on his experience as a commercial disputes solicitor at Herbert Smith Freehills in Brisbane and Tokyo. While a solicitor, he was involved in large-scale and cross-border disputes. As such, he is familiar with heavy and complex matters requiring the coordination of large teams of lawyers and experts, often requiring the adoption of eDiscovery, litigation databases and remote hearing technology.MATERIALSThis was recorded live as a seminar/webinar. The video recording, PowerPoint and transcript are available here.Did you miss previous seminars? Check out the seminar archive on Level Twenty Seven Chambers' website for the video recordings and associated materials produced by the speakers.Want to join future seminars live, in person or online? Register your interest.Website: www.level27chambers.com.au

EJR is back! This week I will report how the very corporations responsible for trashing the planet, are suing governments globally in a desperate attempt to kill any meaningful climate justice law. Now, both the mainstream press, (and progressive outlets like TYT with Cenck Ughur), are reporting this story as if it were a new phenomenon--it's not. This process has been in effect for years, courtesy of a specific tool that permeates our multilateral trade agreements, namely ISDS or Investor State Dispute Settlement.  ISDS is essentially, a kangaroo court, and the judges or 'arbitrators' often come from the ranks of corporate law firms that are paid by the very polluters bringing the suit. It is a dishonest setup, and both democrats and republicans signed off on this Faustian deal.  I have written on this subject for some time now. Come join me.  Jeanine 

In the introductory episode of this three-part series, partners Raja Bose, Ian Meredith, and Matt Weldon, along with associates Ed Brown-Humes and Rob Houston, provide an overview of Investor-State arbitration in the context of investment disputes arising from government measures taken to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. In this short introduction to investment treaties at a time of pandemic, our panel discusses the origins of investment treaty protection dating back to the 1950's, different types of investment treaties and the international investment protection landscape, how investors benefit from these investment treaties, and how those rights can be utilized in practice.

What does the seminar cover?This session forms part of the Australian Arbitration Week 2021 program hosted by ACICA. It will explore the situations where an arbitrator might be said to have performed its office so as to be (wholly or as to particular aspects of the referred dispute) functus officio. Whether an arbitrator is functus officio is important for determining the question of the continuing arbitrator's jurisdiction, which is fundamental to the validity and enforceability of a subsequent arbitral award.The speakers will traverse a range of issues on this topic including:When an arbitrator is functus officioThe weight that courts give to an arbitral tribunal's reasons for determining its jurisdictionWhether courts can remit a matter to an arbitral tribunal after an award has been set aside Who should listen?The principles discussed will be relevant to all commercial litigators, as well as arbitration and alternative dispute resolution pracitioners.PRESENTERSShane Doyle QC (Barrister, Level Twenty Seven Chambers)Widely regarded as one of Australia's leading Silks with a “world class” practice (Chambers & Partners 2017) in international and commercial law, Shane practices from Level Twenty Seven Chambers (Brisbane), 5 Selborne (Sydney) and Essex Court Chambers (London). He undertakes work in hearings under domestic rules (including ACICA, CIArb, IAMA) and is also experienced in appearing in international matters governed by ICC and SIAC rules. As well as being listed as a leading commercial law practitioner in a number of legal areas by Chambers & Partners and Legal 500, Shane is listed as a leading Arbitration Silk by the Australian Financial Review's Best Lawyers®, Doyle's Guide and Who's Who Legal.Chiann Bao (Arbitrator, Arbitration Chambers)Chiann is an independent arbitrator with extensive experience working in multiple jurisdictions (Singapore, Hong Kong, New York and London). She brings significant institutional and private practice experience to her work as and independent arbitrator. During her private practice, Chiann focused on complex international arbitration and litigation, acting as counsel for corporates, state-owned enterprises. She currently serves as a Vice President of the ICC Court of Arbitration and the Chair of the ICC Commission Task Force on Arbitration and ADR. She is also Vice Chair of the IBA's International Arbitration Committee.Sarah Spottiswood (Barrister, Level Twenty Seven Chambers)Sarah practices in commercial and public law. Prior to joining Level Twenty Seven Chambers she was a solicitor at the Australian Government Solicitor (Canberra) and at the UK Government Legal Department. She has a significant background in international law. She advised the UK Department for International Trade on investment arbitration, World Trade organisation disputes and Free Trade Agreement negotiations. Sarah represented the UK at the UNICTRAL Working Group on Investor-State Dispute Settlement (2017-2019) and while at the Australian Government Solicitor advised on international arbitration proceedings and various international law matters.MaterialsThis presentation was recorded as a live webinar. The video recording, PowerPoint and transcript are available here.

Let us take a detailed look into the intersectional relationship between Human Rights & ISDS. We also bring a critical lens to the current problems plaguing the ISDS system & calls for reform. We also explore the role lawyers play in post-conflict peace negotiations and governance, a particular passion of our guest - Meriam Al Rashid Partner & Global Co-Chair of International Arbitration and Co-Head of Latin America Arbitration Practice Group for Eversheds Sutherlands.

Winter has come to the UK, but the Arbitration Station is full of hot takes. Saadia and Joel speak to University of Richmond law professor Chiara Giorgetti [TIME 07:13], who was heavily involved in the drafting of the Draft Code of Conduct for Adjudicators in Investor-State Dispute Settlement, issued by ICSID and UNCITRAL (which we first talked about on S04E15). The Draft Code has now received comments from states and other stakeholders and it's on the table at UNCITRAL this week so the timing is great. Saadia then discusses FDI screening and its intersection with investment disputes [TIME 42:37], before the two law firm employees have a Happy Fun Time talking about filings and what happens to your life during those [TIME 01:07:32].

This episode we take a look at the role of customary international law in Public International Law & the changes we are slowly starting to see in this young system if we are to consider its current form, post the creation of the United Nations. The past is not far behind, however, as we discuss the founding of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) along with the evolution we see in the current Investor-State Dispute Settlement regime, with some hot topics under discussion in the UNCITRAL Working Group III being touched on as well. We are pleased to have Mr Jean-Rémi de Maistre, Founder & CEO of Jus Mundi joining us for this discussion. Jus Mundi is the world's most comprehensive, reliable & quality data for international law and arbitration on one platform. Jus Mundi strives to make international law and arbitration easily accessible and understandable, using artificial intelligence and machine learning to collect and structure global legal data. Global legal professionals use Jus Mundi to efficiently deliver thorough legal research and due diligence with full confidence. --------

[00:00:00] Hellos & Welcome[00:10:00] Alternative News [00:16:00] We talk to Dr Patricia Ranald, University of Sydney and Convener, Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network regarding her recent article ‘Another Australian miner sues another poor country, this time Barrick’s Porgera in PNG’ discussing the increasing practise of Multi-national corporations in suing developing countries for perceived losses under Investor-State Dispute Settlement clauses often included in Free Trade Agreements. The discussion is split into two parts, firstly what is going on in Papua New Guinea and secondly, Investor-State Dispute Settlement cases broader impact on world trade.[0:48:00] We speak with Angela Hesson & Meg Slater, two of the five curators of the upcoming exhibit NGV QUEER. Featuring over 300 artworks within the existing NGV collection, NGV Queer will explore queer concepts as well reveal the queer stories that are often hidden within artworks. We discuss how queer culture is expressed through art as well as how it varies with time and place. We also discuss how the curation process has highlighted missing narratives and gaps within the NGV collection, bringing forth discussions of how art has historically been acquired and collected.[1:11:47] Tram Thoughts – this week we discuss bikes and bike policy in Australia. What is our current policy around bike infrastructure, are we doing enough? We muse over a few post-COVID opportunities to increase our bike usage.

David Shor lost his job at Civis Analytics after his promotion of an academic study on protests created a Twitter controversy. But the socialist data guru’s insights into U.S. politics and the 2020 election are more interesting than cancel culture. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/david-shor-cancel-culture-2020-election-theory-polls.html tweeted out a study(reportedly)apologizedcancel culturepull the Democratic Party left.median voter theorem a papera surge in supporta bigger advantageexceptionally unpopular conceptGallup did something on this in 2017,I obviously tweeted at some pointGreat Awokening was the Lafayette Park incidentMatt StollerRyan Grimactually pulls it to the left,fought to export America’s generous patent protectionsInvestor State Dispute Settlementin a recent paperderegulate banks in 2018recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Boardright-to-work lawssectoral bargainingCodetermination is popular.job guarantee is popular.ticket-splitting declined and ideological polarization went up. TermsPrivacy Notice

London-based international arbitration lawyer Lucy Winnington-Ingram explores the background and context surrounding the ICSID/UNCITRAL draft code of conduct for adjudicators; its likely effects; and future issues that are likely to arise. For more information, please visit Reed Smith's International Arbitration page.

Andrea K. Bjorklund on Will an International Investment Court Restore Legitimacy to Investor State Dispute Settlement?

Over the past several years, Investor State Dispute Settlement has been a point of hot-debate in many nations around the world.  Transparency, expropriation of public funds and other topics have been some of the main issues underpinning that debate.  The International Centre for Settlement of Investor Disputes (“ICSID”) of the World Bank has been on the front lines of that debate. This week’s guest, Meg Kinnear, is the Secretary-General of ICSID and is a prominent figure in the field of Investor-State Disputes.  On this week’s episode she discusses the current state of the ICSID and reflects on her own career that brought her to leading such a dynamic and revered organization. Enjoy the show! TIME STAMPS: Intro Notes: :37Interview Starts: 2:18Personal Interest Info: 41:00Closing Show Notes: 55:16 BOOK REFERENCES:Catch & Release – Ronan Farrow MUSIC REFERENCESMo-TownJoni Mitchell CONTACT: TalesOfTheTribunal@Gmail.com

We're all in greater London but of course we're still not in the same room. Video recording will have to do, as we discuss the recent Draft Code of Conduct for Adjudicators in Investor-State Dispute Settlement, issued by ICSID and UNCITRAL [TIME 13:22], as well as the law governing the arbitration agreement, based on a  recent judgment from the Court of Appeal in London [TIME 39:58]. Happy Fun Time gives the episode its name - who wants to be an arbitrator (and how do you become one)? [TIME 01:01:33]

When tobacco company Philip Morris sued Australia over our plain packaging laws, it's fair to say we were taken by surprise. How can a foreign company take a nation's government to tribunal for protecting its citizens health? The answer is Investor State Dispute Settlement, an obscure clause in free trade agreements allowing corporations to sue foreign governments for what it perceives be unfair discrimination. In practice, this tends to end up happening over regulations in two area: health and the environment. This episode unpacks how ISDS could put a stranglehold on regulations and policies that put people ahead of profit. Producer/Presenter: Cheyne Anderson. Featuring:Dr Patricia Ranald - Convenor of Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network.Dr Carl Rhodes - Professor of Organisational Studies at the University of Technology Sydney. Matthew Rimmer - Professor of Intellectual Property and Innovation Law at the Queensland University of Technology. Max Bonnell - Partner, White and Case.

When tobacco company Philip Morris sued Australia over our plain packaging laws, it's fair to say we were taken by surprise. How can a foreign company take a nation's government to tribunal for protecting its citizens health?The answer is Investor State Dispute Settlement, an obscure clause in free trade agreements allowing corporations to sue foreign governments for what it perceives to be unfair discrimination. In practice, this tends to end up happening over regulations in two areas: health, and the environment.This episode unpacks how ISDS could put a stranglehold on regulations and policies that put people ahead of profit.Producer/Presenter:Cheyne AndersonSpeakers:Dr Patricia Ranald, Convener of Australian Fair Trade and Investment NetworkDr Carl Rhodes, Professor of Organizational Studies at the University of Technology SydneyMatthew Rimmer, Professor of Intellectual Property and Innovation Law at the Queensland University of TechnologyMax Bonnell, Partner White & Case

Facts, Kinder Morgan and the Trans-Mountain Expansion. Very rarely shall the three intersect, by extensive design. Some factors, like climate, fade from the narrative because...well, they are inconvenient facts for proponents of TMX. Others such as a multi-year failure of Kinder Morgan to finance the project have been made moot by the Federal bailout plan. Corruption and incompetence of the National Energy Board continues to be found, yet the Trudeau government breaking the promise of a new process seeks to bypass these facts. Fuel prices will increase due to NEB approved tolls, yet stories of cheaper gas upon completion abound. There are no untapped markets. US refineries are the best price out there for this heavy high-sulfer inferior product, as planned all along. Yet TIDEWATER shall set you free, let the good times roll. Stranded Assets are two words you will be hearing more and more. What about everyone's favourite part of NAFTA - Chapter 11 Investor-State Dispute Settlement? Who is afraid of these facts? The Trudeau government, the Notley government, Kinder Morgan, corporate media and lobby groups such as CAPP. Who is NOT afraid of these facts? Robyn Allan. Robyn Allan is an independent economist and has held many executive positions in the public and private sectors. Robyn is a past Economic and Financial Advisor to the Barrett Commission, expert witness on economic and insurance issues related to the Northern Gateway project, and expert intervenor on economics, risk and commercial need at the NEB Trans-Mountain Expansion hearings. Until she resigned over what she termed fundamental flaws in the process. An author and investigator, her work has been carried by The Globe & Mail, The Tyee, National Observer, Financial Post, Vancouver Sun and many others. Involved in bringing truth to the Kinder Morgan issue from the start, The View Up Here proudly welcomes Robyn Allan for some facts on TMX.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into effect on January 1, 1994 between the United States, Canada and Mexico. The agreement created the biggest economic trading bloc in the world. NAFTA was the first multinational trade liberalization agreement, becoming a template for all that have followed. Phrases such as Investor-State Dispute Settlement, the loathed ISDS, became common practice going forward around the world. For 23 years the discussion about benefits, handicaps, gains, losses, jobs and market share have remained mostly along lines of interest depending on who was speaking. Subsequent global accords such as the WTO have not only made use of NAFTA precedents, but also hemmed in the agreement on some fronts. Canadian governments of Chretien, Martin, Harper and Trudeau have fought in arbitration both for and against but never have any of them stated any intent to leave the agreement. Mexican governments of Salinas, Zedillo, Fox, Calderon and Nieto have seen massive overall improvements in their nation's health and it would be hard-pressed to find negative aspects of it in the big picture. American governments of Clinton, Bush and Obama stuck by the agreement, despite never ending special interest opposition and the biggest overall losses of the three nations by far. Enter Donald Trump. Proclamations don't carry much force in international trade. Personal opinions (especially ill-informed ones) don't change trade agreements. The warning signs from individual US states and next-door allies fall on deaf ears as long as the cameras are rolling with the Dotard. Bluster and ignorance about procedure could actually leave the US weaker with a renegotiated NAFTA, leaving it altogether risks nothing short of a global recession. But the Narcissist King says it sucks, so it must right? uhh...no Will NAFTA be improved, remain as is, or be sacrificed for one man's vanity?

Gary Clyde Hufbauer argues that the criticism of the procedure set up in trade agreements to settle disputes between multinational corporations and states in which they invest is largely unwarranted. There is room for improvements in its procedures and processes, however.

Trans-Pacific Partnership 12 nations, 11% of global population, 40% of the global economy, 25% of global imports, 30% of global exports. 800 million people bound by an agreement negotiated in secret from the citizens and almost all elected representatives. Who wrote it then? Trade representatives with multi-national corporate lobbyists and executives at the tables from start to finish. A 30 chapter agreement with 5 involving actual trade. Environment. Financial Services. Patents. Copyrights. Intellectual Property. Pharmaceuticals. Health Care. Investment. Labour. Market Access. Procurement. Tobacco. State Owned Enterprises. Biotechnology and GMO's. And a new iron-clad version of the infamous Investor State Dispute Settlement "mechanism" complete with secret tribunals, secret judgements and secret awards. 5,544 pages worth of regulations, schedules, indexes, timetables and LOOPHOLES to empower the most powerful corporations on earth to have veto power say over how signatory nations will live their day-to-day lives. This is the latest method for the mostly American corporate elite to bypass the WTO, exclude and isolate "unfriendly" economies, enslave "freindly" economies and laugh all the way to the bank. Protests have been raging in every "partner nation" for years as February 4 nears as the day for "signing" of the agreement in Auckland, New Zealand. There is no opting out of any section or provision unless stated before that signing by any nation. No renegotiation. We are joined by Meghan Sali, a digital rights specialist with OpenMedia,org, leading the organization's free expression campaigns. For the past two years, she has been co-ordinating the campaign to shed light on the implications of TPP as they relate to preserving our online rights and building a properous, inclusive digital future. Tune in and hear the facts on TPP.

In the third and final episode in our Trans-Pacific Partnership series, we take a look at the TPP Environment Chapter; would the treaty actually improve enforcement of environmental laws around the world?   Please support Congressional Dish: Click here to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Trans-Pacific Partnership Text Full Text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Office of the US Trade Representative, November 5, 2015. Hearing Highlighted in this Episode TPP Issue Analysis - Environment Chapter, House Ways and Means Committee (Democrats), November 17, 2015. Watch on YouTube Witnesses Dr. Joshua Meltzer Senior Fellow in Global Economy and Development, Brookings Institution Digital Task Force Member at the Atlantic Council June 2015 – January 2016 (8 months) Washington D.C. Metro Area "Provided advice on the digital trade issues between the U.S. and the EU" Subject Matter Expert for the E15 Initiative, World Trade Organization "Expert appointment to the E15 working group developing an agenda for the WTO on climate change issues Former trade negotiator with the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Former diplomat to the Australian Embassy in Washington D.C., specializing in trade and climate change issues. Alexander von Bismarck Executive Director, Environmental Investigation Agency "An international campaigning organization committed to investigating and exposing environmental crime" Served in United Nations and World Bank Ilana Soloman Responsible Trade Program Director, Sierra Club Environment Chapter Highlights Article 20.6: Governments "shall cooperate to address matters" related to pollution from ships Article 20.12: "Cooperation" includes "dialogues, workshops, seminars, conferences.. technical assistance, the sharing of best practices on policies and procedures, and the exchange of experts." Cooperative activities "are subject to the availability of funds" and the participating governments "shall decide, on a case-by-case basis, the funding of cooperative activities." Article 20.7: Each government "shall" create sanctions for violations of environmental law that "may include" a right to bring action against the violator for damages or injunctive relief. Article 20.10: "Corporate Social Responsibility": Each government "should encourage" companies to "adopt voluntarily" standards to protect the environment. The voluntary standards "should be designed in a manner that maximises their environmental benefits and avoids the creation of unnecessary barriers to trade." Article 20.13: Each government "shall promote and encourage the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity" The governments "shall cooperate" to address "matters of mutual interest"; 'cooperation' means "exchanging information". Article 20.15: "Transition to a Low Emissions and Resilient Economy" Says the governments recognize that the transition requires collective action Governments "shall cooperate to address matters of joint or common interest" Article 20.16: Each government "shall seek to operate a fisheries management system that regulates marine wild capture fishing and that is designed to prevent overfishing and overcapacity..." Each government "shall promote the long-term conservation of sharks, marine turtles, seabirds, and marine mammals, through the implementation and effective enforcement of conservation and management measures." "No Party shall grant or maintain any of the following subsidies..." that negatively affect fish stocks. Gives the governments three years to change their laws to comply. Article 20.17: The governments "commit to promote conservation and to combat the illegal take of, and illegal trade in, wild fauna and flora. The parties "shall exchange information", "undertake joint activities" and "endeavor to implement... resolutions." Such measures "shall include sanctions, penalties... that can act as a deterrent to such trade." "Each Party retains the right to make decisions regarding the allocation of administrative, investigatory, and enforcement resources." Article 20.23: Environmental issues are eligible for the Investor State Dispute Settlement tribunals Additional Reading Article: TransCanada is suing the U.S. over rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline. The U.S. Might Lose. by Todd Tucker, Washington Post, January 8, 2016. Article: White House Releases Text of Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal by Vicki Needham, The Hill, November 5, 2015. Article: The Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Accord Explained by Kevin Granville, New York Times, October 5, 2015. Report: The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Negotiations and Issues for Congress by Ian Fergusson, Mark McMinimy, and Brock Williams, Congressional Research Service, March 20, 2015. Article: Geo-engineering: Climate fixes could harm billions by David Shukman, BBC News, November 26, 2014. Article: Michael Froman and the Revolving Door by Felix Salon, Reuters, December 11, 2009. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio) Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is finished and will be eligible for a vote in Congress in February 2016. In December, the Democrats held a hearing on the Investment chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In this episode, highlights from that hearing and a summary of the provisions in one of the TPP's most important chapters. Please support Congressional Dish: Click here to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Trans-Pacific Partnership Text Full Text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Office of the US Trade Representative, November 5, 2015. Hearing Highlighted in this Episode TPP Issue Analysis - Investment Chapter, House Ways and Means Committee (Democrats), December 2, 2015. Watch on YouTube Witnesses Matt Porterfield Deputy Director and Adjunct Professor of law at the Harrison Institute for Public Law, Georgetown University Law Center Served on the State Department's Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy (ACIEP) Subcommittee on Investment during the Obama Administration Ted Posner Parter at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, an international corporate law firm with 9 offices in the United States and 11 offices outside the country (see News and Announcements for list of clients) Served in the Office of the US Trade Representatives and on the National Security Council during the George W. Bush administration Served on the State Department's Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy (ACIEP) Subcommittee on Investment during the Obama Administration Michael Smart Vice President of Rock Creek Global Advisors, LLC Director for International Trade and Investment on the National Security Council during the George W. Bush administration Was a lawyer in the ISDS system as an Associate at Sidley Austin during the George W. Bush administration's early years Was on the Democratic staff of the US Senate Committee on Finance during the early Obama administration years. Former staffer to former Rep. Earl Pomeroy for over nine years. Thea Lee Deputy Chief of Staff, AFL-CIO, which represents 12.5 million American workers. Vice Chairwoman of the State Department's Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy (ACIEP) Subcommittee on Investment during the Obama Administration Investment Chapter Highlights Article 9.4: Countries can't treat companies from other countries any differently than they treat companies from their own Article 9.6: Countries must provide police protection to foreign companies Article 9.6: Removal of subsidies does not count as a violation of the treaty, even if the company is financially harmed Article 9.7: Countries can nationalize their assets if they pay the companies with interest Article 9.9: Countries can not require companies to use domestic goods or to buy products from within the country ("Buy American") Section B: Conflicts between multinational companies and TPP countries will be settled through the Investor-State Dispute Settlement system Article 9.20: There is a statute of limitations of three years, six months from when the company should have known a "breach" occurred Article 9.21: The three judges will be selected by the company and the government involved (one each) and the third one either agreed upon or appointed by the Secretary General of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Article 9.22: The tribunal can award attorney's fees to the case winner Article 9.22: The burden of proof lies with the company making the claim Article 9.23: ISDS tribunal documents will be available to the public Article 9.28: Puts limits on the awards Sound Clip Sources YouTube Video: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Tobacco, February 15, 2015. Additional Reading Article: White House Releases Text of Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal by Vicki Needham, The Hill, November 5, 2015. Article: For Pickens, Wind Claim May Be Last Power Play by Alexandra Stevenson, New York Times, October 15, 2015. Article: The Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Accord Explained by Kevin Granville, New York Times, October 5, 2015. Op-Ed: Ron Kind: Why I'm Fighting for a Trade Deal by Rep. Ron Kind, LaCrosse Tribune, April 13, 2015 Article: Bilcon to Sue Canada for $300 Million After Winning NAFTA Ruling on Quarry, The Canadian Press, March 20, 2015. Report: The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Negotiations and Issues for Congress by Ian Fergusson, Mark McMinimy, and Brock Williams, Congressional Research Service, March 20, 2015. Report: Reform of Investor-State Dispute Settlement: In Search of a Roadmap, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, June 26, 2013. Article: Michael Froman and the Revolving Door by Felix Salon, Reuters, December 11, 2009. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio) Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations

Institute of Advanced Legal Studies The role and importance of the UN Convention on transparency for investor-state dispute settlement Dr Nikolaos Theodorakis (Lecturer and Fellow, University of Oxford; IALS Visiting Fellow) The new UN Conven...

"Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the People's Republic of China for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments" That is the official name of this monstrosity. It's not a "Free Trade" agreement, it is an "Investment Protection" agreement, according to the Ministry of Truth. No debate in Parliament. No vote in Parliament. 31 years before a chance to opt out. The infamous "Investor-State Dispute Settlement" clause. Laws of the land can be deemed "illegal" in a secret court. Damages awarded and we will never know. The commitment from the Harper Government to withhold ratification while the case from Hupacasath First Nation was before the Federal Court of Appeal and the decision was under reserve, meant nothing in the end. On a Friday afternoon last September, Emperor Harper once again proved his word means nothing. We welcome back Brenda Sayers of the Hupacasath First Nation to tell us what has happened since, what is going to happen, and how their efforts can be supported by Canadians across the nation. First Nations are the last peoples who have any rights over their air, water and environment. Their fight is our fight. They are in the position to challenge these terrible deals using the legal system. They need all Canadians' support to protect our future environment for everyone. The prospects of the framework "International Law" that applies on the Canada-China FIPA limits every level of government from free will and carrying out the decisions of the voters. Why? For corporate profit, what else. Join us and find how you can help resist the wholesale clearance of Canada by the Corporate Pacification Committee

Episode 13 State of the Union Josh talks Obama’s State of the Union, and Manuel Perez Rocha explains what’s at stake with Investor State Dispute Settlement.

This panel will discuss various economic and developmental aspects of ISDS, debate whether ISDS is a necessary inducement for foreign investors, examine the costs and benefits of ISDS rules to various U.S. entities, and consider whether and how ISDS provisions may be impacting the trade agenda. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.