A 'private, global super court' you've never heard of is changing the world

CNBC ^ | 29 August 2016 | Christine Wang

[Lorianne]

A little-known international arbitration system is gaining global power and allowing multinational corporations to sue entire countries.

Buzzfeed News spent months reporting on the scope and power of the investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS, and just published a nearly 10,000-word investigative report on the system. If you don't have two hours to go through the whole tome, here are some highlights.

ISDS was originally intended to help international businesses protect their investments in other countries and in turn encourage development and more foreign investment. It part of the fabric of major international trade agreements like NAFTA and the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Buzzfeed's report features cases involving Egypt, El Salvador and Indonesia that suggest this "private, global super court" inordinately benefits corporations to the detriment of developing nations. It even touches on one of Donald Trump's former business partners who used the system to duck a prison sentence.

One major issue is that this system only works one way: corporations can sue countries, but governments can't sue the businesses, according to Buzzfeed. ISDS rulings are as legally binding as if they were made by a country's own supreme court, but the proceedings aren't beholden to precedent or public oversight, Buzzfeed reported.

[Mr. Douglas]

So, are decisions legally binding? I doubt it.

[Wolfie]

Not so secret. Stories are easily found of corporations suing countries and even local municipalities under NAFTA. These tribunals are written into the trade agreements.

For example, back in 2001, the NAFTA Tribunal for the case of Metalclad Corp vs. Mexico ruled in favor of Metalclad, ordering the Mexican government to pay US$16.7 million in compensation.

In October 1996, Metalclad Corporation, a U.S. waste-disposal company, accused the Mexican government of violating NAFTA's Chapter 11 when the state of San Luis Potos refused it permission to reopen a waste disposal facility.

The state governor ordered the site closed down after a geological audit showed the facility would contaminate the local water supply. The governor then declared the site part of a 600,000-acre ecological zone. Metalclad claimed that this constituted an act of expropriation and sought US$90 million in compensation.

[DoughtyOne]

These big trade agreements that set in place things like this are why many oppose them.

[Cheerio]

Run and funded by Soros?

[vikingd00d]

>>So, are decisions legally binding? I doubt it.

Helps to read the article sometimes...

“ISDS rulings are as legally binding as if they were made by a country’s own supreme court, but the proceedings aren’t beholden to precedent or public oversight, Buzzfeed reported.”