Uc_006 Tpp, Isds & The End of Democracy

In the modern First World most citizens work for the majority of their lives with breakeven financials in the hope of one day retiring with a modest nest egg and enough continent years to enjoy it. Sure we’ve all got creature comforts like antibiotics, tele-screens, and ranch dressing but on balance it doesn’t seem that much different to the prospects of a medieval serf. So what makes us all put up with this crappy deal? Democracy. Here in the Democratic Constitutional Monarchy of Australia, once every 3 years or so we toddle off to a cardboard booth with a bread-swaddled tube of barbecued beef sweepings in one fist a stubby pencil in the other - and we cast a vote for the pale conflicted Muppet that disappoints us least. From there the Rule of Law takes over. The Muppets pass whatever laws their donors require and those laws are interpreted by the courts. As citizens we know that if trouble strikes, we have recourse to the Highest Court in the Land whose binding interpretation of those laws is unimpeachable. Or so we all f*&cking thought. For the last 48 years a secretive International court has existed with specific but ultimate powers to overrule every court beneath it. And thanks to the treaties like the Trans-Pacific Partnership currently being negotiated all over the world, the powers of this court could circumvent the democracies of almost every nation on earth. So to countries about to sign the TPP, TTIP, or TISA - treaties with no discernible exit clause - we pose this question, with hyperbole or manufactured click bait controversy Is This The End of Democracy?. Introducing the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, or ICSID for short. It's an opaque supranational court that hears disputes between corporations and sovereign nations A process that carries what should be the scariest acronym in modern society - ISDS. Let’s break it down. 'I' is for Investor. These are multinational enterprises with any form of investment in a sovereign nation. 'S' is for STATE this is any country that has agreed to be subject to ISDS. 'D' is for DISPUTE - over any laws or actions that a sovereign nation has taken that a corporation feels inconvenienced by. And take note - this is a one-way court. Countries cannot sue Corporations in ISDS - we’re catchers not pitchers. And the final 'S' is for SETTLEMENT Which includes huge financial compensation paid by sovereign nations to corporations, as well as the ability to make rulings to force a government to break it's own laws. So a court this powerful must be a pretty serious operation, right? Well to find out it’s useful to take a brief trip back to High School Legal Studies to look at The Key Foundations of the Judiciary. For a legal system to function it must be: a) separated from the state & executive b) arbitrated by independent and qualified legal operatives such as judges c) use past decisions to establish precedent d) include an appeals process, and e) be transparent So let's apply these criteria to ISDS courts. The regulations that determine how ISDS courts operate are written by the ISDS courts themselves. ISDS cases are arbitrated not by judges but by lawyers paid by the hour who in their spare time represent corporations in other ISDS cases. The lawyers are 95% male and mostly come from first world developed countries. A troubling fact when you consider that around 70% of the countries sued in ISDS courts are developing nations with roughly 51% female populations. Precedent law is not used in ISDS, so countries have no way of knowing how their laws will be interpreted. A government could write a law and not know whether it's going to cost them billions in ISDS. A countries would be better off taking their entire national treasury to the casino and placing it all on black. Or white, as it turns out. There is no appeals process in ISDS - the loser stays the loser. And finally there is no requirement for transparency or for ISDS decisions to be released to the public Ordinary citizens have no way of knowing if their laws have been changed because of ISDS decisions. So a secret court with huge conflicts of interest that meets none of the accepted definitions of a legal system has the power to force your government to break its own laws or hand over billions of your tax dollars as compensation. Now just in case there are some of you still watching that haven’t sold your goods & chattel and moved to an Amish community - lets look at a few examples. Smoking. That thing you only see these days on HBO, or outside office buildings in huddled groups of nicotine refugees. Here in Australia our previous government took the uncharacteristically brave step in the public interest and introduced plain packaging laws - turning iconic branded durry boxes into beige cancer-stick receptacles. Unsurprisingly the tobacco industry didn't warm to the idea. One year after the plain packaging legislation was passed, Phillip Morris shifted some assets to Hong Kong thus giving them the right to sue Australia in ISDS court using an obscure 1993 trade agreement between Australia and Hong Kong. But our Undercurrent Award for Ironic Corporate Douchebaggery goes to transport giant, Veolia who successfully sued for what they felt was unfair treatment when the Egyptian Government, in the wake of the Arab Spring uprising, raised the minimum wage to approximately 50c an hour. Good business is about managing risk. But these treaties seem to shift the risk of running a global corporation on to tax-payers who have no say in the business decisions. Even our role in the political process - that vote every once-in-a-while - is becoming largely symbolic. But at lease we’ve all got ranch dressing.