SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
isds
State Lawmakers Urge US Exit From Toxic ISDS Mechanisms in Trade Deals
"Outdated trade rules like ISDS can pose a real threat to states' sustainable energy initiatives and the good-paying jobs they create," said one lawmaker from Maine.
Aug 06, 2024
More than 300 state lawmakers signed a letter Monday calling on U.S. President Joe Biden to "eliminate the threat of Investor-State Dispute Settlement from all U.S. trade and investment agreements," joining hundreds of civil society groups and dozens of members of Congress in speaking out against rules that allow foreign corporations to challenge state laws.
The legislators—who include Democrats, Republicans, and Independents—expressed support for the official position of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) regarding ISDS, as the conference convened its annual summit in Louisville, Kentucky.
The NCSL opposes trade deals "with investment chapters that provide greater substantive or procedural rights to foreign companies than U.S. companies enjoy under the U.S. Constitution."
The Biden administration has agreed with the NCSL's call to exclude ISDS from any new trade agreements, but the U.S. is currently a party to more than 50 trade and investment deals that contain the rules.
"It's long overdue that we change course. Getting rid of ISDS, which embodies the runaway corporate power embedded in our trade deals, is a great place to start.
ISDS rules empower corporations to sue governments if they claim their profit margins are harmed by public programs, such as public health regulations, environmental rules, food safety guidelines, or climate laws aimed at reducing fossil fuel emissions.
"The outcomes of these cases, which can result in billions of U.S. tax dollars paid to foreign corporations in compensation, are
determined in unaccountable tribunals presided over by unelected corporate lawyers whose rulings are not subject to appeal," reads the Monday letter from state lawmakers, including North Carolina state Rep. Pricey Harrison (D-61), New York state Sen. Liz Krueger (D-28), and Florida Rep. Anna Eskamani (D-42).
According to the letter, "even cases that get dismissed can result in countries paying millions in tribunal costs."
Harrison said in a statement that "the era of corporate-dominated trade policy" has contributed to a loss of 40% of North Carolina's manufacturing jobs.
"It's long overdue that we change course," said Harrison. "Getting rid of ISDS, which embodies the runaway corporate power embedded in our trade deals, is a great place to start. These extreme corporate rights undermine democracy and critical public interest protections here at home and around the globe. I'm glad to see so many colleagues from across the political spectrum joining me in this effort."
Last November, 200 civil society groups demanded the elimination of ISDS within APEP, and three dozen members of Congress wrote to U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai and Secretary of State Antony Blinken last May saying the U.S. should end the system's use in its trade agreements.
Allowing corporations to sue over laws that cut into their profits, wrote the lawmakers on Monday, "threatens the policy space we need to maintain high-level public health standards, create clean energy jobs, protect the digital privacy and data-security of those we represent, and much more."
Maine state Sen. Craig Hickman (D-14) expressed concern about ISDS both as a lawmaker and "an organic farmer committed to curtailing the severe impacts of climate change and strengthening rural economies."
"Outdated trade rules like ISDS can pose a real threat to states' sustainable energy initiatives and the good-paying jobs they create,"
said Hickman. "I urge the administration to eliminate this antiquated mechanism that stands in the way of sustainable food systems and the clean energy economy we need to build for our children and grandchildren."
Note: This article has been edited to correct a reference to U.S. trade deals containing ISDS and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Repairing the Harmful Legacy of Corporate-Dominated Trade in the Americas
As a former ISDS defense attorney, I represented Latin American governments against corporations and witnessed firsthand the devastating impacts of this mechanism on local communities, economies, and environments.
Jul 31, 2024
For decades, U.S. trade policy across Latin America has prioritized the profit of U.S. mega-corporations over the well-being of communities, workers, democracy, and human rights. Now, as trade ministers from the U.S. and eleven countries in our hemisphere convene at the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity (APEP) Ministerial in Quito this week, they have an opportunity to address one of the worst manifestations of this shameful legacy.
Embedded within trade and investment agreements between the U.S. and many countries in Latin America is a relic of colonialism that empowers multinational corporations to challenge any public interest law and policy that may interfere with their profits in extrajudicial, closed-door arbitration tribunals. This insidious system is called Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), and it effectively erodes democracy while fleecing governments of taxpayer dollars and diverting public funds. Yet the secretive nature of the ISDS system ensures the public remains largely unaware.
As a former ISDS defense attorney, I represented Latin American governments against corporations and witnessed firsthand the devastating impacts of ISDS on local communities, economies, and environments.
Time and again, I saw how ISDS granted corporations unprecedented power beyond domestic laws to sue foreign governments for any action they argue violates their broad investor rights, even if governments attempt to protect human rights, workers, or the environment.
Only corporations can launch suits, meaning governments cannot hold corporations accountable. Therefore, if a corporation engages in harmful practices and a government tries to mitigate them, the company can launch an ISDS claim. This system has awarded corporations over $100 billion in taxpayer dollars in known cases, with fossil fuel companies being the primary beneficiaries. The actual sum is likely much higher since awards are often kept secret.
The impact of ISDS on Latin America and the Caribbean has been particularly severe. The region faces a disproportionate number of ISDS disputes (nearly a third of all cases) despite having less than 10% of the world’s population. Latin American governments have been forced to pay corporations $33.8 billion in known awards and settlements, diverting critical resources from social needs.
Following colonization, newly independent nations were pressured to adopt trade and investment deals with ISDS provisions supposedly to attract investment. Despite proponents’ claims, studies show no meaningful increase in foreign investment due to ISDS provisions. Brazil does not have any treaties with ISDS and yet receives the most foreign investment in the region. Instead, ISDS has entrenched an imbalanced system where multinational corporations wield disproportionate power and pillage resources unchecked, often at the expense of the environment and local communities, echoing the colonial paradigm.
I have also witnessed many times how ISDS undermines the will of the people and places Indigenous communities in danger, particularly when corporations want to extract resources from their lands.
The right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent is a cornerstone of Indigenous rights, allowing them to agree to or reject proposals impacting their lands. However, governments may sideline these rights to avoid costly ISDS litigation, undermining Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination. While Indigenous rights are enshrined in international law, they are often inadequately enforced, whereas ISDS obligations are both binding and highly enforceable. Furthermore, ISDS tribunals frequently restrict the participation of local communities before issuing their awards, effectively silencing the voices of the most impacted and vulnerable.
Notably, the APEP ministerial is taking place in Ecuador, a country that has endured egregious ISDS cases highlighting the erosion of sovereignty and environmental injustice perpetuated by the system. For example, after being found guilty of severe pollution and environmental damage to the Amazon and ordered to clean up by Ecuadorian courts, U.S. oil giant Chevron launched an ISDS suit against Ecuador for $9.5 billion instead of complying. Another case involved Occidental Petroleum, which was awarded $1.4 billion after Ecuador terminated a contract due to the company’s violation of domestic laws.
In 2009, after undertaking an extensive audit of its investment treaties, Ecuador denounced ISDS, withdrew its membership from the World Bank’s venue where most ISDS cases are heard, and terminated 16 bilateral investment treaties. Subsequent Ecuadorian governments have unsuccessfully tried to reinstate ISDS. In response to a referendum this past April, Ecuadorian voters rejected ISDS in a landslide. This is a powerful, democratic statement against a system that prioritizes corporations.
Ecuador’s struggle with ISDS is emblematic of the broader issues countries face, and the global opposition to ISDS is growing. The European Union recently exited the Energy Charter Treaty, which granted ISDS powers to fossil fuel companies, citing concerns that it undermined the fight against climate change. Bolivia, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, South Africa, and Venezuela have also taken steps to eliminate their ISDS liability. United Nations experts have called for the abolition of ISDS, citing its undermining of state sovereignty, democracy, and the rule of law.
Domestically, there is increasing bipartisan pressure to end ISDS. Both the previous and current administrations have taken steps away from ISDS. President Biden pledged to abstain from including ISDS provisions in new trade deals. Last year, over 200 U.S. labor unions, faith groups, and environmental organizations urged President Biden to eliminate ISDS from existing treaties, highlighting its detrimental impact on public health, climate protections, Indigenous land rights, and democratic sovereignty. Members of Congress have echoed these calls, emphasizing the need to address ISDS to tackle the root causes of migration, protect the environment, and uphold democratic values.
Achieving APEP’s stated goals of fostering inclusivity and sustainable economic development hinges on reconciling past policy mistakes. Members of Congress recently urged USTR to establish a working group within APEP to explore options for eliminating ISDS provisions in existing trade deals. Not only is this possible, but it is also essential to align trade policy with the values of democracy, human rights, and environmental protection.
APEP ministers should seize this opportunity and eliminate ISDS once and for all to give a sustainable future for people and the environment a fighting chance. The stakes are too high to do otherwise.
Keep ReadingShow Less
ISDS Courts Have Helped Fossil Fuel Firms Rake In $80 Billion in Public Money
"ISDS is the secret weapon for fossil fuel companies against climate laws," said one advocate.
Jun 06, 2024
A week after the European Union announced its withdrawal from the controversial Energy Charter Treaty, which has been criticized for being one of many global agreements that allow fossil fuel companies to sue governments, a coalition on Thursday released an analysis showing just how lucrative such deals have been for firms whose emissions are wreaking havoc on the planet.
The Transnational Institute, the Trade Justice Movement (TJM), Power Shift, and the Institute for Policy Studies joined forces to unveil the Global ISDS Tracker, which includes data on more than 1,300 cases that have made their way to secretive tribunals set up by investor-state dispute mechanisms in treaties including the Energy Charter Treaty.
ISDS courts allow fossil fuel companies and other large corporations to sue governments for compensation over policies that harm their profits, such as regulations to curb planet-heating emissions or air pollution, which is responsible for 1 in 5 deaths worldwide.
Many judgments made by ISDS tribunals are kept secret, but the Global ISDS Tracker revealed that $114 billion in public funds have been paid out to investors across industries, with fossil fuel companies and investors raking in $80.2 billion of that.
Another $48 billion in public money is expected to go to fossil fuel firms from ISDS disputes in the coming years if current trends continue, said the groups behind the tracker.
Tom Wills, director of TJM, said the tracker proves what trade and climate justice groups have said "for years: ISDS is the secret weapon for fossil fuel companies against climate laws."
"Corporate courts are also used to threaten governments not to give in to popular local or national demands for climate action," said Wills. "This needs to be put to an end. The data shows reform is urgently needed."
The tracker includes the $15 billion compensation lawsuit filed by TC Energy against the U.S. government when President Joe Biden canceled the company's permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have carried 830,000 barrels of tar sands oil each day.
The largest ISDS claim currently being adjudicated is Zeph Investment's case against the Australian government, which the firm says "effectively destroyed" its plans for a major mine, costing it $200 billion.
As Common Dreamsreported last November, civil society groups have called on the Biden administration to dismantle the ISDS system within the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity, with one campaigner arguing that ISDS was "created for and by powerful, well-organized corporations, and has served their interests almost exclusively."
Lucía Bárcena, trade policy officer at the Transnational Institute, said eliminating ISDS in treaties should be a top priority for trade and climate justice campaigners in the coming years.
"In this challenging moment, when there is more climate action needed from states," said Bárcena, "it is unbearable to have corporate courts that can wash all the efforts away."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular