A NAFTA investor who alleges that a host government has breached its investment obligations under Chapter 11 may, at its option, have recourse to one of the following arbitral mechanisms:
World Bank
United Nations
[]
panel decisions, are binding as to the particular matter addressed.
https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Defa...language=en-US
Congress has the authority to regulate our trade with foreign powers. UN and World bank have no such "binding" authority.
SECURITY COUNCIL SANCTIONS COMMITTEES: AN OVERVIEW
Under Chapter VII of the Charter, the Security Council can take enforcement measures to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such measures range from economic and/or other sanctions not involving the use of armed force
to international military action.
The use of mandatory sanctions is intended to apply pressure on a State or entity to comply with the objectives set by the Security Council without resorting to the use of force. Sanctions thus offer the Security Council an important instrument to enforce its decisions. The universal character of the United Nations makes it an especially appropriate body to establish and monitor such measures.
http://www.un.org/sc/committees/
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/E...resJan2011.pdf
I have read the source text of most of the FTA's we're party to in the past two decades.
They all contain provisions for ISDS "Investor State Dispute Resolution"; this means disputes are settled by supranational arbitration panels (typically WTO, World Bank, or UN) and the decisions are BINDING under "International Law" and enforceable by UN actions. No other parties to the dispute have standing in court beside the Corporation making the claim and the infringing State.
US Taxpayers have been forced to pay at least $400,000,000 to international corporations under such settlements and there are 10's of billions currently in litigation against the US.
Prior to the rise of ISDS every trade pact we had with other nations was arbitrated simply between sovereign parties using direct diplomacy or tit for tat actions.
Originally Posted by
Traditional Conservative 
It pretty much eliminates all tariffs between 11 different countries. That certainly makes the trade far more free than it would be otherwise.
Yeah until the US is a accused by some foreign nation of "violating" some arbitrary rule and the World Bank fines us trillions and the UN decides to enforce the sanctions with the force of arms.
Fuck that.
"More Free" NEVER involves management by a supranational organization.
The Constititution does NOT allow Congress to cede the authority to exit these agreements to China, Russia, or France; and certainly not to a supranational organization.
The issue with NAFTA, TPP, etal is not the terms and conditions... its is WHO ARBITRATES the violation of the terms and conditions.
Regulation and high tariffs imposed by Congress are FAR BETTER than no regulation and no tariffs imposed by the World Bank.
KORUS FTA
is arbitrated by ICSID which funded by the World Bank.
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41779.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...tment_Disputes
KORUS FTA arbitration is
BINDING supranational authority over US trade with Korea and is Unconstitutional
Panama TPA
Unless the Parties otherwise agree,
the roster shall include up to seven individuals
who are nationals of each Party and up to six individuals who are not nationals of either Party.
http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/fi...e460_10398.pdf
It allows investors alleging a breach in investment obligations to seek
binding arbitration against the state through the dispute settlement mechanism defined in the
BINDING arbitration against the state
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32540.pdf
Panama TPA arbitration is
BINDING supranational authority over US trade with Panama and is Unconstitutional
Columbia TPA
Chapter Ten provides a mechanism for an investor of a Party to submit to
BINDING international arbitration claim for damages against the other Party.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-11...112srpt222.htm
ALL of these "free trade agreements" and "trade promotion agreements" subvert national soveriegnty.
Congress should never be bound by a supranational authority to subvert is constitutional duty to regulate trade.
"lower trade barriers" are inherently good, are inherently libertarian, are inherently pro freedom...
but not if they come at the cost of loss of soveriegnty
"The opposition to investor-state dispute settlement (
ISDS) rights is a case in point.
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.
"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
"A comprehensive, rules-based system has been the key to the success of the WTO's architecture,"
[]
"It's vital that
this be continued in the TPP."
THAT my friends is what this is all about.
Its not about "free trade"; its about giving the WTO, World Bank, and UN authority to override what our Constitution says is Congress' duty alone.
ISDS
Revolution is Action upon Revelation!
Originally Posted by
idiom
Okay, try this, New Zealand has basically no tariffs on anything. Whats in it for us? From what I have seen NZ ends up becoming a Vassal state of the US.
Rather than the US giving up sovereignty, on balance it will basically steal it from the other signatories.
Its Imperialism without bullets.
Doubtless that New Zealand is a vassal state. The thing that most people miss: The US is a vassal state as well.
Contract by contract... each binding under "International Law", we're all bowing to this flag:
Originally Posted by
Traditional Conservative
I don't know. I'm undecided, but I think
there's a libertarian case to be made for supporting these "free trade agreements" because they lower or eliminate tariffs
Similarly...
there's a right-to-life case to be made for a global ban on abortion where violators will face a United Nations military tribunal
So-Called Free Trade Costs Sovereignty
Posted: May 2, 2014 |
Author: insidejbs |
Filed under: Uncategorized |
Leave a comment
So-Called Free Trade Costs Sovereignty
by JBS President John F. McManus
A friend who favors free trade agreements (such as those now being negotiated by U.S. officials and their European and Pacific Rim counterparts) insists that these “partnerships” pose no threat to our nation’s sovereignty. He likens the proposed agreements to the beneficial free trade arrangement existing among our 50 states. But, without him realizing it, my friend’s argument actually made the case for my real concerns about such agreements.
In 1955, Dow Chemical executive Lewis Lloyd wrote a book calling for protectionism. Formerly a solid cheerleader for free trade, he found through experience that, if free trade among nations is actually conducted — such as what exists among our 50 states — eight conditions must be present. And the final of his eight conditions was the need for
“world government” and a loss of sovereignty.
In his
Tariffs: The Case For Protection, Dr. Lloyd stated that there must be comparable taxes, a single monetary system, uniform business laws, similar business ethics, freedom of movement by workers from place to place, freedom from the threat of war, and an overseeing world government.
All of what Lloyd saw as necessary can be found in the state-to-state relationships within the United States — except a world government. Here, unencumbered trade is regulated by the federal government under the U.S. Constitution, and there’s no loss of national sovereignty. Should free trade be established nation-to-nation, claimed Dr. Lloyd, there would be a need for an overall governing body with a superior constitution superseding the government structure established in each nation. In other words, there would be a need for a world government superior to each national government and it would function just as our own federal government does vis-à-vis the states. But the national sovereignty of the nations involved in this free trade would have been canceled.
Consider the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), two pacts that U.S. leaders are now hammering out with equivalent foreign officials. Approval of the TTIP would tie the U.S. with the EU that was sold to Europe’s mostly unsuspecting national leaders as a pact designed merely to enhance trade. But it has become dominant over its 28 formerly independent nations. Consider: In 2003, Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus warned that the EU was leading to “no more sovereign states in Europe.” In 2004, EU leaders proposed an overall constitution which claimed that it “shall have primacy over the law of member states.” In 2004, a leader of Britain’s United Kingdom Independence Party stated that the EU “has turned into a political union which is changing our basic laws and traditions.” And in 2007, former German President Roman Herzog lamented that “84 percent of the legal acts in Germany stemmed from Brussels.” The EU has become a super government dominating Europe’s once-sovereign nations.
Should Senate ratification of the TTIP be accomplished, the U.S. will have duplicated Europe’s catastrophic blunder and essentially joined the EU, losing its national sovereignty in the process. Ratification of the TPP would likewise be a huge mistake, and lead to a corresponding loss of U.S. national sovereignty. But the interesting point here is that the beneficial state-to-state relationships within our nation do not support my friend’s claim that nation-to-nation free trade agreements will be similarly beneficial. They would instead constitute a severe dilution of national sovereignty, as the EU has accomplished in Europe. The relationships generated by so-called “free trade agreements” prove that sovereignty will be lost.
Americans should let their representatives and senators know that
free trade partnerships must be rejected, along with
rejecting Trade Promotion Authority that would facilitate congressional passage of any such free trade partnerships.
http://insidejbs.org/2014/05/02/so-c...s-sovereignty/
This diary is detailed and technical. It's intended to provide an illustration of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), a feature of the TPP and TTIP free-trade agreements.
[]
the most important lesson to be learned from the case is this:
The tribunal didn’t issue the initial ruling on the matter. It's decision came after the decision of Ecuador’s Supreme Court. The tribunal knew that a decision had already been made by the sovereign court of Ecuador and it inserted itself into the decision and overruled it. By doing so, it pushed the boundaries of the ISDS process beyond the established definition.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...en-sovereignty
Oregon Legislators Warn of Trade Deal’s Threat to State Sovereignty
Posted on
August 31, 2010 by
CTC
For Immediate Release
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Bipartisan Group of Legislators Ask Sen. Wyden to Defend Oregon Laws from Attack in International Tribunals
The Korea Free Trade Agreement Poses Serious Threat to State Sovereignty
Salem, Ore. — A bipartisan group of Oregon State Legislators sent U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) a letter today urging him to use his position as chair of the Senate Subcommittee on International Trade to strip provisions from a pending trade agreement that threaten to expose Oregon laws to attack in international tribunals.
According to the letter, the pending Korea Free Trade Agreement “includes
investor-to-state enforcement mechanisms
that enable foreign corporations to directly challenge American laws, regulations and even court decisions as trade violations through international tribunals that completely circumvent the U.S. judicial system.”
http://www.citizenstrade.org/ctc/ore...e-sovereignty/
‘Free’ Trade and the Sovereignty Squeeze
Mercantilism in trade agreement rules-setting makes weaker economies slaves to the interests of economic hegemons.
By Ji Xianbai
October 28, 2014
The U.S.–Peru FTA (PTPA) marks the very first success of Washington’s attempts to subordinate other countries’ sovereignty to its own national interest by squeezing non-trade-related provisions into a bilateral trade liberalization agreement and overriding foreign national laws. To provide a level playing field for American companies, the PTPA lays out detailed measures that Peru is obliged to take to govern its forest sector. The
Forest Annex of the PTPA requires Peru to set up an independent forestry oversight body and even enact new Forestry and Wildlife Laws to legalize key provisions of PTPA. The
U.S.–Colombia FTA (CTPA)’s labor provisions represent an “
even more blatant assault on another country’s sovereignty.” Meanwhile, Colombia was forced to agree to establish a dedicated labor ministry; endorse legislations outlawing interference in the exercise of labor rights; double the size of its labor inspectorate; and set up a phone hotline and an internet-based system to deal with labor complaints. Examples of similar provisions abound: Don’t forget that the U.S.-Panama FTA has “helped” revamp Panama’s tax policy on behalf of Panamanians.
In a similarly coercive fashion, the EU has never been shy of imposing its own will on other countries in trade. Last week, a November 2011 diplomatic
cable between Ecuador’s then-ambassador in Brussels, Fernando Yepez Lasso, and the Ecuadorian vice minister for Foreign Relations, Kintto Lucas Lopez, was leaked. The confidential communication suggests that Ecuador was “bullied into a EU trade agreement.” Denouncing it as “biased,” Ecuador was convinced the agenda was set to prioritize the trade liberalization component of the agreement that was able to accrue immediate gains to the EU over two other pillars of the EU-Andean Association Agreement, namely, an economic cooperation agreement and a forum for political dialogue, which were of more long-term significance to Andean states. So Ecuador pulled out of the talks in 2009. To compel Ecuador to return to the negotiating table, the EU resorted to stark threats of economic isolation as the Ambassador admitted in the cable that “[t]he proposal of the European Commission, which includes criteria that could exclude Ecuador from the preferences framework [...], is an element of pressure on Ecuador to join the free trade agreement.” Afraid of being left out and sustaining a $1.2 billion loss to its economy if trade ties with EU was disconnected, the Ecuador government crumbled and finally inked the agreement on July 17. This painful experience has taught Ecuador a lesson that what governs trade negotiations is the law of the jungle and prompted Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa to comment in an
interview after signing the FTA that free trade “is the most anti-historical thing that exists; almost no developed country used it.”