NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT #1b] ISDS Ban

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9033
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

[DRAFT #1b] ISDS Ban

Postby Tinhampton » Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:08 pm

Character count: 1,055
Word count: 170
ICly by Kevin Mitchell, third-in-line to the post of Delegate-Ambassador.
OOC: See also A/70/285, A/HRC/30/44, A/HRC/33/40 and the ISDS Platform FAQ. Also, I have absolutely nothing better to do right now now that McDonalds closes at 8pm. Will submit this as soon as I get McDonalds... whenever that is, anyway.
Image
Image
Image
ISDS Ban
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.
Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Tinhampton

Whereas fundamental sapient rights should not be literally or metaphorically sold to the highest bidder, the General Assembly hereby:
  1. defines:
    1. an "FTA," for the purposes of this resolution, as a bilateral or multilateral free trade agreement that includes at least one member state, and
    2. an "investor-state dispute settlement mechanism," henceforth an ISDS mechanism, as any mechanism included in an FTA which has the effect of allowing any legal person to file suit against any party to that FTA outside of any domestic or World Assembly courts, but which does not allow any other legal or natural person to file such suit nor any party to that FTA to file suit against any legal person outside such venues,
  2. forbids the establishment of future ISDS mechanisms,
  3. requires that all ISDS mechanisms currently in operation be disbanded, and
  4. strongly urges legal persons who believe that their rights have been violated to seek redress in domestic courts or in any court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee.

THIS SPACE RESERVED FOR PREVIOUS DRAFTS
Last edited by Tinhampton on Tue Jul 20, 2021 6:57 am, edited 2 times in total.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading The Road to Somewhere by David Goodhart

User avatar
Wayneactia
Minister
 
Posts: 2170
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wayneactia » Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:52 pm

"No. It is just more meaningless regulation. Nations are capable of making some decision by themselves, without hand holding."

Wayne

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9033
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:57 pm

Mitchell: Are you arguing that nations should be making suboptimal decisions? Member states cannot sue corporations in ISDS Court Imitation Product; corporations, however, are more than welcome to sue member states. I have been very clear during what little time we've had debating this process that justice should be a two-way street.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading The Road to Somewhere by David Goodhart

User avatar
Wayneactia
Minister
 
Posts: 2170
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wayneactia » Mon Jul 19, 2021 7:05 pm

Tinhampton wrote:Mitchell: Are you arguing that nations should be making suboptimal decisions? Member states cannot sue corporations in ISDS Court Imitation Product; corporations, however, are more than welcome to sue member states. I have been very clear during what little time we've had debating this process that justice should be a two-way street.

"I've made my position very clear. It is just meaningless regulation."

Wayne

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15834
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Jul 20, 2021 2:47 am

OOC: I'm going by the rule of thumb that if a proposal's language is nonsense to me, it's nonsense to my nation too (I know gnomes can translate words, but they can't translate when concepts don't exist, like the recent apostate thing - apostate has no accurate translation in Finnish/Araraukarian), so no support on jargon babble nonsense. :p

Also, why should nations not be allowed to sue corporations? Just makes no sense.
Last edited by Araraukar on Tue Jul 20, 2021 2:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9033
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Tue Jul 20, 2021 6:57 am

Araraukar wrote:OOC: [...] Also, why should nations not be allowed to sue corporations?

Definition updated, in particular to clarify that only foreign investors - not domestic investors - are allowed to "sue" states in most if not all real-world ISDS mechanisms. It is because ISDS mechanisms lead to "nations not be[ing] allowed to sue corporations" that I seek to prevent their use in free trade agreements involving WA member states.

Thus, "any legal person" in Article a(ii) does not necessarily mean literally any legal person anywhere in the world without exceptions/conditions; it means any legal person who is allowed by the FTA to bring "suit" against a state in an ISDS mechanism. Those legal persons who are not so allowed (such as non-TNCs) may remain so disallowed without member states or TNCs being able to claim that their ISDS mechanisms are not, in fact, ISDS mechanisms (which would therefore escape this proposal's Articles b and c :P).
Last edited by Tinhampton on Tue Jul 20, 2021 7:03 am, edited 5 times in total.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading The Road to Somewhere by David Goodhart

User avatar
CoraSpia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12437
Founded: Mar 01, 2014
Anarchy

Postby CoraSpia » Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:06 am

"The Haven firmly believes that nations are capable of deciding on the provisions in their own international treaties themselves. Furthermore, without ISDS a nation without a proper understanding of property rights may attempt to steal the property of an investor: ISDS ensure that corruption in the domestic government and courts does not lead to unfair treatment of international investors. We will not be able to support this proposal and doubt that drafting changes will be sufficient to change our view.
GVH has a puppet. It supports #NSTransparency and hosts a weekly zoom call for nsers that you should totally check out

User avatar
The Hazar Amisnery
Envoy
 
Posts: 268
Founded: Oct 26, 2020
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Hazar Amisnery » Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:20 am

"If some country accuses me of ripping them off, I should have the right to march over there and settle the dispute. I'm not going to the WA"
-Tim Shokolad, Trade Minister

OOC: The UN didn't ban ISDS, they made rules about it. Why do we have to outright ban it? https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitr ... ansparency
WA Delegate of The European Commowealth of Nations
ɐılɐɹʇsn∀
My lieblingsfach is multimedia
My geburtstag is November
I'm currently in my 7th lockdown

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9033
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Wed Jul 21, 2021 9:36 am

The Hazar Amisnery wrote:OOC: The UN didn't ban ISDS, they made rules about it. Why do we have to outright ban it? https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitr ... ansparency

If you actually read the links in my OP, you would find out that the UNHRC's (emeritus) Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order has called for the abolition of ISDS on multiple occasions in his capacity as such.

The UN has not banned conversion therapy, either. However, my resolution "End Conversion Therapy" was in large part inspired by another official report by another Independent Expert (and a campaign by several LGBTQ+ advocacy groups to ban conversion therapy in the United Kingdom, which has taken no action as of yet).

The WA would be able to do almost nothing if it could only do things that the Arrellyooenn could do.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading The Road to Somewhere by David Goodhart

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9033
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Mon Jul 26, 2021 1:07 pm

It's been five days. Any other concerns? :P
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading The Road to Somewhere by David Goodhart

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15834
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Jul 27, 2021 2:56 am

Tinhampton wrote:It's been five days. Any other concerns? :P

OOC: Can you re-explain the whole thing in simple terms that don't use unexplained jargon?
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9033
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Tue Jul 27, 2021 3:52 am

Araraukar wrote:
Tinhampton wrote:It's been five days. Any other concerns? :P

OOC: Can you re-explain the whole thing in simple terms that don't use unexplained jargon?

Nations can sign free trade agreements with other nations.

Those free trade agreements sometimes contain provisions for a special type of court to be created.

In these special courts, companies can sue member states because those member states have passed laws that harm their corporate interests (such as plain packaging on cigarettes). Member states cannot sue companies, however.

If companies win their cases in these special courts, they can require compensation from member states. This is compensation for lost corporate profits, not because the laws they passed somehow violate international/UN/WA law.

These special courts are unnecessarily one-sided and should therefore be banned by the World Assembly.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading The Road to Somewhere by David Goodhart

User avatar
CoraSpia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12437
Founded: Mar 01, 2014
Anarchy

Postby CoraSpia » Tue Jul 27, 2021 4:54 am

Tinhampton wrote:
Araraukar wrote:OOC: Can you re-explain the whole thing in simple terms that don't use unexplained jargon?

Nations can sign free trade agreements with other nations.

Those free trade agreements sometimes contain provisions for a special type of court to be created.

In these special courts, companies can sue member states because those member states have passed laws that harm their corporate interests (such as plain packaging on cigarettes). Member states cannot sue companies, however.

If companies win their cases in these special courts, they can require compensation from member states. This is compensation for lost corporate profits, not because the laws they passed somehow violate international/UN/WA law.

These special courts are unnecessarily one-sided and should therefore be banned by the World Assembly.

The premise is objectively wrong though. These courts require qualified arbitrators which both sides have the opportunity to select and to challenge. They are created with the consent of both nations.

The function of these courts is to protect the rights of foreign investers who have had their property expropriated or who have suffered discrimination in corrupt or authoritarian states. In fact with the ridiculous police powers doctrine which prevented the investers in the case you have referred to (regarding plain packaging on cigarettes), I would argue that these courts give far too much weight to the interests of host countries.
GVH has a puppet. It supports #NSTransparency and hosts a weekly zoom call for nsers that you should totally check out

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9033
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Tue Jul 27, 2021 5:28 am

CoraSpia wrote:
Tinhampton wrote:Nations can sign free trade agreements with other nations.

Those free trade agreements sometimes contain provisions for a special type of court to be created.

In these special courts, companies can sue member states because those member states have passed laws that harm their corporate interests (such as plain packaging on cigarettes). Member states cannot sue companies, however.

If companies win their cases in these special courts, they can require compensation from member states. This is compensation for lost corporate profits, not because the laws they passed somehow violate international/UN/WA law.

These special courts are unnecessarily one-sided and should therefore be banned by the World Assembly.

The premise is objectively wrong though. These courts require qualified arbitrators which both sides have the opportunity to select and to challenge. They are created with the consent of both nations.

The function of these courts is to protect the rights of foreign investers who have had their property expropriated or who have suffered discrimination in corrupt or authoritarian states. In fact with the ridiculous police powers doctrine which prevented the investers in the case you have referred to (regarding plain packaging on cigarettes), I would argue that these courts give far too much weight to the interests of host countries.

In my OP, I link to a UN report called A/70/285. In that report, the author talks about Philip Morris filing ISDS suits against Uruguay - one of the most prosperous countries in South America - and Australia for having the cheek to impose common-sense regulations on tobacco. It also talks about a Swedish electricity company called Vattenfall filing an ISDS suit against Germany, which has one of the largest economies in the world and hosted the FIFA World Cup as recently as 2006, for deciding to stop using nuclear power plants. These states cannot be described in any sense of the word as being "corrupt or authoritarian."

Also in that report, the author refers to an ISDS case called Vivendi v. Argentina. One of the arbitrators in the Vivendi case was literally a director of UBS, "the single largest shareholder in Vivendi," to the point where part of her salary was being paid in UBS shares. Argentina's appeal of their defeat because of this was subsequently rejected,
Last edited by Tinhampton on Tue Jul 27, 2021 5:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading The Road to Somewhere by David Goodhart

User avatar
CoraSpia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12437
Founded: Mar 01, 2014
Anarchy

Postby CoraSpia » Tue Jul 27, 2021 5:29 am

Tinhampton wrote:
CoraSpia wrote:The premise is objectively wrong though. These courts require qualified arbitrators which both sides have the opportunity to select and to challenge. They are created with the consent of both nations.

The function of these courts is to protect the rights of foreign investers who have had their property expropriated or who have suffered discrimination in corrupt or authoritarian states. In fact with the ridiculous police powers doctrine which prevented the investers in the case you have referred to (regarding plain packaging on cigarettes), I would argue that these courts give far too much weight to the interests of host countries.

In my OP, I link to a UN report called A/70/285. In that report, the author talks about Philip Morris filing ISDS suits against Uruguay - one of the most prosperous countries in South America - and Australia for having the cheek to impose common-sense regulations on tobacco. It also talks about a Swedish electricity company called Vattenfall filing an ISDS suit against Germany, which has one of the largest economies in the world and hosted the FIFA World Cup as recently as 2006, for deciding to stop using nuclear power plants. These states cannot be described in any sense of the word as being "corrupt or authoritarian."

Are you aware that Philip Morris lost both times?
GVH has a puppet. It supports #NSTransparency and hosts a weekly zoom call for nsers that you should totally check out

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9033
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Tue Jul 27, 2021 2:24 pm

Only about one in three ISDS cases are won by the sued state IRL.

Regardless - if ISDS usually finds in favour of the investors, then the WA should ban it because it often requires members to compensate corporations for exerting self-interested influence outside the regular court system. If ISDS usually finds in favour of the state, then the WA should ban it because it often requires members to fork out to successfully defend themselves against such compensation/exertations. Interesting...
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading The Road to Somewhere by David Goodhart

User avatar
Wormfodder Delivery
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 367
Founded: Feb 14, 2021
Corporate Police State

Postby Wormfodder Delivery » Tue Jul 27, 2021 2:30 pm

The Wormfodder Delivery Service supports this, less problems with governments disliking our business practices, hooray!
The Wormfodder Delivery Service, bringing Wormfodder to you, whereever you are.
Visit our Website at: www.Wormfodderdeliveryservice.com, and enjoy our new landing page.

NS Stats do not count, unless it is funny.
The Transcripts canonically do not exist and merely serve to make the garbled Wormsspeak readable.
Canon Policies.
Open to RP, send me Telegrams, Pretty much compatible with everything.
Zero tolerance for godmodders tho.
Powerlevel of 4,5 according to this classification
Industrial Age Schizotech and Proud

It is now safe to keep playing.


User avatar
CoraSpia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12437
Founded: Mar 01, 2014
Anarchy

Postby CoraSpia » Tue Jul 27, 2021 3:44 pm

Tinhampton wrote:Only about one in three ISDS cases are won by the sued state IRL.

Regardless - if ISDS usually finds in favour of the investors, then the WA should ban it because it often requires members to compensate corporations for exerting self-interested influence outside the regular court system. If ISDS usually finds in favour of the state, then the WA should ban it because it often requires members to fork out to successfully defend themselves against such compensation/exertations. Interesting...

On the contrary. The ISDS system provides a defence for corporations wishing to expand into new markets, and provides states with a method of reassuring potential investers that their property and profits won't simply be stolen. Consider the system like an insurance system for corporations wishing to expand: in order to make investments in particular states, these corporations require certain reassurances that their investment will not be lost in the event of regime change, public protest etc. Without this assurance, the corporation would not invest in the states in question.
If the WA takes the incredibly short-sighted step of banning this highly useful system, states recovering from conflict, less developed states and states that have formerly been ostracised by the international community will not be able to offer potential investers any reassurances, as by their nature these tribunals are used when the domestic courts have failed to remedy the issues that the corporation has faced. The end result is that corporations, who owe a duty to their shareholders not to make risky decisions, will not invest in states which they do not feel confident that their investments will be safe in. The losers here are the very people this proposal is aiming to help namely the less developed states.
GVH has a puppet. It supports #NSTransparency and hosts a weekly zoom call for nsers that you should totally check out

User avatar
Barfleur
Diplomat
 
Posts: 528
Founded: Mar 04, 2019
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Barfleur » Tue Jul 27, 2021 6:10 pm

"Barfleur supports this common-sense measure to bring some degree of parity to the field of international commercial arbitration. It boggles the mind that, under the ISDSs targeted by this proposal, a corporation may bring a suit against a nation, for any number of reasons, and yet the nations--and their people--are confined to a reactive, defensive role. Litigation of any kind has got to be a two-way street, and no system should literally place one class of litigant above the law."
Barfleur: Unus pro omnibus et omnes pro uno
Citizen of The East Pacific
“Sweatpants are a sign of defeat. You lost control of your life so you bought some sweatpants.”
― Karl Lagerfeld
Ambassador: Roger MacGeorge
Military Attaché: Colonel Lyndon Q. Ralston
Co-author, GA#534.
The Barfleurian World Assembly Mission can be found at Room 1903, Floor 19, WAHQ.


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Abacathea

Advertisement

Remove ads