Here is the latest: http://i.cfr.org/content/pu
Post# of 65629
Posted On: 05/29/2016 6:32:32 PM
Here is the latest:
http://i.cfr.org/content/publications/attachm...TIP_OR.pdf
http://www.cfr.org/trade/transatlantic-trade-...ool/p37813
How is it unbalanced though given the fact that it is "free". The big scare tactic used is the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) .
What is ISDS?
ISDS is a neutral, international arbitration procedure. Like other forms of commercial, labor, or judicial arbitration, ISDS seeks to provide an impartial, law-based approach to resolve conflicts. Various forms of ISDS are now a part of over 3,000 agreements worldwide, of which the United States is party to 50. Though ISDS is invoked as a catch all term, there are a wide variety of differences in scope and process. ISDS in U.S. trade agreements is significantly better defined and restricted than in other countries’ agreements.
Governments put ISDS in place for at least three reasons:
To resolve investment conflicts without creating state-to-state conflict
To protect citizens abroad
To signal to potential investors that the rule of law will be respected
Because of the safeguards in U.S. agreements and because of the high standards of our legal system, foreign investors rarely pursue arbitration against the United States and have never been successful when they have done so.
Where did ISDS come from?
Disputes between investors and foreign countries have required adjudication for as long as there has been cross-border investment. Prior to the evolution of the modern rules-based system, unlawful behavior by States targeting foreign investors tended either to go unaddressed or to escalate into conflict between States. Military interventions in the early years of U.S. history – gunboat diplomacy – were often in defense of private American commercial interests. As recently as 1974, a United Nations report found that in the previous decade and a half there had been 875 takings of the private property of foreigners by governments in 62 countries for which there was no international legal remedy. Though diplomatic solutions were possible, they were often ineffective and political in character, rather than judicial.
ISDS represented a better way.
Though the modern form of ISDS did not emerge until the 1960s, the idea of using special purpose panels to resolve disputes between private citizens and foreign governments dates to the earliest days of the Republic
https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/pres...ement-isds
If you want to eliminate free trade...then you must eliminate federal income tax(vice versa).
http://i.cfr.org/content/publications/attachm...TIP_OR.pdf
http://www.cfr.org/trade/transatlantic-trade-...ool/p37813
How is it unbalanced though given the fact that it is "free". The big scare tactic used is the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) .
What is ISDS?
ISDS is a neutral, international arbitration procedure. Like other forms of commercial, labor, or judicial arbitration, ISDS seeks to provide an impartial, law-based approach to resolve conflicts. Various forms of ISDS are now a part of over 3,000 agreements worldwide, of which the United States is party to 50. Though ISDS is invoked as a catch all term, there are a wide variety of differences in scope and process. ISDS in U.S. trade agreements is significantly better defined and restricted than in other countries’ agreements.
Governments put ISDS in place for at least three reasons:
To resolve investment conflicts without creating state-to-state conflict
To protect citizens abroad
To signal to potential investors that the rule of law will be respected
Because of the safeguards in U.S. agreements and because of the high standards of our legal system, foreign investors rarely pursue arbitration against the United States and have never been successful when they have done so.
Where did ISDS come from?
Disputes between investors and foreign countries have required adjudication for as long as there has been cross-border investment. Prior to the evolution of the modern rules-based system, unlawful behavior by States targeting foreign investors tended either to go unaddressed or to escalate into conflict between States. Military interventions in the early years of U.S. history – gunboat diplomacy – were often in defense of private American commercial interests. As recently as 1974, a United Nations report found that in the previous decade and a half there had been 875 takings of the private property of foreigners by governments in 62 countries for which there was no international legal remedy. Though diplomatic solutions were possible, they were often ineffective and political in character, rather than judicial.
ISDS represented a better way.
Though the modern form of ISDS did not emerge until the 1960s, the idea of using special purpose panels to resolve disputes between private citizens and foreign governments dates to the earliest days of the Republic
https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/pres...ement-isds
If you want to eliminate free trade...then you must eliminate federal income tax(vice versa).
(0)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼