Trans-Pacific Partnership Takes Legal Authority Away from Domestic Courts

By:  Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
10/29/2013
       
Trans-Pacific Partnership Takes Legal Authority Away from Domestic Courts

Key provisions of the Trans-Pacific Partnership remove disputes between corporations and members states away from domestic courts.

New reports on leaked draft versions of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement indicate threats to the rights of news organizations to publish information critical of large corporations. The multinational trade pact will require member states to surrender sovereign control over domestic copyright laws, as well.

In a story published by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the agreement being hammered out by the 12 Pacific rim countries will:

give private corporations new tools to undermine national sovereignty and democratic processes. Specifically, TPP would give multinational companies the power to sue countries over laws that  might diminish the value of their company or cut into their expected future profits.

EFF reports that a seemingly benign provision of the TPP agreement called the “investor-state dispute settlement” (ISDS) will revoke the right of domestic courts to settle legal disputes between participating countries and corporations with investments in that country.

In a nutshell, if a corporation feels that its ability to turn a profit on an investment made in a member country is being stymied by the country’s regulatory scheme, then that corporation may bring the dispute to the TPP bureaucracy, completely bypassing the nation’s domestic judicial system.

The EFF story summed up this TPP provision’s assault on national sovereignty:

Apparently a country’s own courts can’t be trusted to administer this kind of lawsuit, so investor-state also requires the creation of a new court. It would be comprised of three private-sector attorneys who take turns being judge and/or corporate advocate. 

Even if this kangaroo court ruled in favor of the defendant nation, court costs alone would scare countries from adopting (or enforcing) pro-user policies where they might potentially inhibit investor profits. The investor-state tribunal bills its time by the day and decides for itself how many days to work, so it can rack up as many days of work they want. Given this system, it's then no surprise that current investor-state court costs average about 8 million dollars per case. So even if it wins, the country has to pay those court fees, the lawyer fees, plus compound interest. That’s money that would doubtless be better spent elsewhere.

The process is absurd as well. Once a decision has been issued, there is no way to appeal it. That's right, if this court rules that the nation is at fault and has to pay huge fees that could even bankrupt a government, there's no other way for the country to overturn that decision.

Click here to read the entire article.

The JBS Weekly Member Update offers activism tips, new educational tools, upcoming events, and JBS perspective. Every Monday this e-newsletter will keep you informed on current action projects and offer insight into news events you won't hear from the mainstream media.
JBS Facebook JBS Twitter JBS YouTube JBS RSS Feed