DO YOU SUPPORT: Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) ???

[presence]

I'm fired up and its time to bust out the crayons.







The Traditional Way:

States are sovereign... when trade disputes arise, diplomats meet in embassies, sometimes these disputes are resolved by tit for tat actions... other times the offending state concedes to complaints. Symbolic agreements are made "in good faith".

Congress makes final decisions regarding our duties, tariffs, and excises.
Our foreign trade partners make final decisions regarding their duties, tariffs, and excises.

Constitutional text

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence^{[note 1]} and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause


The ISDS Way:

Supranational organizations like the UN, WTO, World Bank, or other international tribunals are the final arbitrators of trade disputes. Trade agreements specifically state that the contract is made under "international law" and supranational arbitrators decisions are final and BINDING to party States.

For the past 20 years or so, ALL international trade agreements made by the United States have involved supranational "Investor-State Dispute Settlement".

ISDS has been a feature of nearly all US-backed trade agreements and many of Australia's free trade agreements. It is similar to rights granted in bilateral investment treaties which enable commercial entities to initiate international arbitration if provisions for freedom to invest are not respected.

http://www.chinamoneynetwork.com/201...rade-agreement

That includes NAFTA and all of supposed "Free Trade Agreements" listed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ade_agreements

I prefer to more accurately refer to these contracts as "Supranationally Arbitraded Trade Agreements"



Where we used to have private relations with these foreign nations, we now have supranationally ARBITRATED relations, with BINDING consequences under "International Law".

Today, the United States has become a leader of the free trade movement, standing behind groups such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (later the World Trade Organization).

The Trans Pacific Partnership is currently being negotiated behind closed doors... presumably it will also contain binding supranational ISDS provisions.

"If the TPP -- and by extension a Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific which is now being considered by APEC -- is to succeed,

ISDS is an essential part of this architecture."

http://www.chinamoneynetwork.com/201...rade-agreement

[kcchiefs6465]

I trust Congress about as much as the WTO with regards to making free trade regular.

Considering the implications of Article I, Section VIII, Clause I, may they all go $#@! themselves with a rusty nail.

[Brett85]

Don't know. I'm still undecided. I need to research this issue more to know the pros and cons of these agreements. I do know that for years the John Birch Society types were claiming that trade agreements like NAFTA were going to lead to a one world government, and that certainly hasn't happened. I think there are probably valid reasons to be opposed to these trade deals, but some of the opposition is just hysterical.

[presence]

for years the John Birch Society types were claiming that trade agreements like NAFTA
were going to lead to a one world government,

and that certainly hasn't happened

Meanwhile...


UN says US states' pot legalization not in line with international law!

80,000 Prisoners in Solitary; US Summoned to UN Torture Hearings

Slain Ferguson teen's dad seeks justice at UN

'We crossed the line', US admits to UN anti-torture body

United Nations condemns US Cuba embargo