It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Leaked TPP Document Reveals Plan To Create Corporate World Court

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 11:56 PM
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

See, a "one world government" in and of itself doesn't scare me that much (think Star Trek) -- but when it's owned and operated by corporations motivated by PROFIT, that scares the crap out of me.

posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 02:16 AM
a reply to: MystikMushroom

I agree. Makes me think of the East India Company. The Guardian had a good article some weeks ago:

The East India Company: The original corporate raiders
For a century, the East India Company conquered, subjugated and plundered vast tracts of south Asia. The lessons of its brutal reign have never been more relevant


Within a few years, 250 company clerks backed by the military force of 20,000 locally recruited Indian soldiers had become the effective rulers of Bengal. An international corporation was transforming itself into an aggressive colonial power.

Using its rapidly growing security force – its army had grown to 260,000 men by 1803 – it swiftly subdued and seized an entire subcontinent. Astonishingly, this took less than half a century.


It was not the British government that seized India at the end of the 18th century, but a dangerously unregulated private company headquartered in one small office, five windows wide, in London, and managed in India by an unstable sociopath


By 1803, when the EIC captured the Mughal capital of Delhi, it had trained up a private security force of around 260,000- twice the size of the British army – and marshalled more firepower than any nation state in Asia.
The Guardian

posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 07:02 AM
Us common folks should create office that is specialty to fight big corporate entities around the world, we could support each other trough it many ways too and shine a light towards what is going on and defend each other freedoms!

posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 07:57 AM
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Here's the problem with a one world government to me. I have seen it in the corporate health and grocery models. Once the Health Food Industry began making huge sums in 1997, conventional corporations began buying these successful chains and independents.

In 1997, there was diversity in choices beyond compare, you could find popular best sellers as well as obscure items representative of just a few peoples needs. Once the large National chains bought the smaller regional independents, product sets became nationally standardized to the best selling most frequent turning products. If you cannot create x dollars per square inch of shelf space, then the SKU is off the shelf. So no longer do local demographics lead to a stores available products, now gross profit margin and turns does.

I call this standardized mediocrity no matter how you cut it, if you are from a different cultural paradigm, then you haven't got a good meter for evaluation of another segments use of a particular item, so it ends up being evaluated on "turns" at the bare minimum.

I can see this being the norm applied all across a global-ocracy, affecting all the smaller segments of the global population, forcing them into the majority's world view.

posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 08:29 AM

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I read a comment that made me think...

So, according to this corporations could sue countries for raising the minimum wage because it would hurt future profits?!

Wait a minute... doesn't this strip away the sovereignty of any country that becomes a part of the TPP? Aren't the participating countries basically giving up their sovereign rights to the corporations and their "court"?

No, it's completely benign. We're cooperating with our global partners in forming a grand court (army) of the republic.

I wasn't all that into the NWO conspiracy, but this seems like a pretty bold move in that direction.

posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 09:22 AM
I understand the need for this kind of system, But I don't believe it will do any good, and further the complications between Corporations and the nation states taking part in this. The only good I see, "and i'm not even sure this is included in the disputes about this trade pact" , is the issue of any company who's technology has deliberately been copied, " despite patents" and resold as cheaper Asian machinary. Like in my industry some really great engineering and designing of machines for bending glass, were made in Europe, China buys one of these European machines, then copies all the tech, even the patented technology and is then resold. Totally destroying the European manufacture. I think we are playing right into the hands of China's vision for there future as the global leader in everything. I hate it. Fair trade is a pipe dream.

posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 11:46 AM
a reply to: Elton

It`s not about the rape of the tax payers their money in the first place, it`s about being able to threat with a court.

This is meant as nothing more as, "the big corporations getting a free hand to be able to do whatever they want," because future governments will face lawsuits if they oppose against things which goes against the interest (profit) of the big Monsanto and the likes, can wreck our healths, countries, economies, environment, etc. in the future and get away with it, because Governments will be simply too scared to go against certain things they do.
edit on 27 3 2015 by BornAgainAlien because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 01:23 AM
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Yeah, it's pretty depressing.

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 11:06 AM
a reply to: Elton

Thanks for this.


posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 01:57 PM
a reply to: soficrow

Thanks, I was stunned when I read the article!

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 04:26 PM
a reply to: Elton

My fave:

...foreign firms can “sue” states and obtain taxpayer compensation for “expected future profits”. These investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) tribunals are designed to overrule the national court systems. ISDS tribunals introduce a mechanism by which multinational corporations can force governments to pay compensation if the tribunal states that a country’s laws or policies affect the company’s claimed future profits.

But this has been happening already, for a couple of decades, in Canada and the US, right?

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 04:41 PM

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
We did an NLBS episode on the Trans-Pacific Partnership just a few weeks ago. This new information, added to what we learned, yields only one clear analysis: It's a corporate takeover of the concept of a New World Order.

imho - the NWO was always the corporate plan.

2005. The Corporate NWO

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 04:47 PM
Would this mean no more wars? To wit, it would hurt profits? Of course, it could go the other way. Suing for stopping a war which would also hurt profits.....

Could be a fun would make for an interesting reality show....LMAO

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 05:03 PM
World Corporate Fascism is the end result.

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 05:45 PM
a reply to: Elton

The ability to sue for a loss of 'expected future profits' is extremely troubling, I can imagine this clause is there not only to handle disagreements but to be abused by the largest corporations to absorb losses from markets that don't perform as expected (I really hope I'm reading too much into it).

Ha. Let's see Walmart collect on anything this court awards them. Not likely, unless this court has its own standing army. The corporates have no connection with reality if they really think that a court of any kind can make a sovereign nation pay them for "future earnings". Not unless the US military backs it up, and if it does, I really pity the president that sends in the troops on that one.

All in all, this sh*t is laughable, if it weren't so pathetic.

edit on 3/29/2015 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 05:47 PM
a reply to: NorEaster

... The corporates have no connection with reality if they really think that a court of any kind can make a sovereign nation pay them for "future earnings".

I believe it's already happened on several occasions. ...Just google it (with ref to NAFTA).

Ed. to ADD did a quick search - it's all about NAFTA's Chapter 11. Not sure which chapter/clause applies in the TPP.

Metalclad vs. Mexico, Toxic Waste and NAFTA

...the NAFTA Tribunal for the case of Metalclad Corp vs. Mexico ruled in favor of Metalclad, ordering the Mexican government to pay US$16.7 million in compensation. It is the first ruling in an investor-to-state lawsuit under NAFTA.

In October 1996, Metalclad Corporation, a U.S. waste-disposal company, accused the Mexican government of violating NAFTA's Chapter 11 when the state of San Luis Potos refused it permission to reopen a waste disposal facility.

The state governor ordered the site closed down after a geological audit showed the facility would contaminate the local water supply. The governor then declared the site part of a 600,000-acre ecological zone. Metalclad claimed that this constituted an act of expropriation and sought US$90 million in compensation.

Other Chapter 11 Cases

In 1997 the U.S. chemicals giant, Ethyl Corp, used NAFTA's Chapter 11 to sue the Canadian government for a ban imposed on MMT, a gasoline additive produced by Ethyl which is toxic and hazardous to public health. Ethyl claimed that the ban "expropriated" its assets in Canada and that "legislative debate itself constituted an expropriation of its assets because public criticism of MMT damaged the company's reputation."

Ethyl sued the Canadian government for US$250 million. A year later, in June 1998, the Canadian government withdrew environmental legislation banning MMT, and paid Ethyl Corp US$13 million to settle the case.

Three more suits are outstanding against the Canadian government, three against the Mexican government and two against the U.S. government.

The case against the United States by a Canadian corporation, Mexthanex, also gained attention with a September 5 article in The National Post announcing that Methanex will seek US$970 million in compensation for environmental laws in California which are "tantamount to expropriation."

All of these cases are based on the "rights" of investors guaranteed in NAFTA's Chapter 11, where a broad definition of "expropriation" is combined with the right of investors to directly sue governments for compensation (under "investor-to-state" dispute resolution).


edit on 29/3/15 by soficrow because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 05:47 PM
a reply to: soficrow

Most trade agreements have remediation measures in the contract I think.

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 05:56 PM
a reply to: NorEaster


...The claims against Ottawa for damages under the Chapter 11 investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism in NAFTA total billions of dollars, according to the summary of cases by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA), an Ottawa think tank that has often criticized federal policies.

...“NAFTA’s investor-state mechanism and similar investment rules in other international treaties have been rightly criticized for giving multinational corporations too much power while constraining the fundamental role of democratic governments,”

Currently, Canada faces nine active ISDS claims challenging government measures that allegedly interfere with the expected profitability of foreign investments, the report says.
These include challenges to a ban on fracking by the Quebec government; a decision by a Canadian federal court to invalidate a pharmaceutical patent on the basis that it was not sufficiently innovative or useful; provisions to promote the rapid adoption of renewable energies; a moratorium on offshore wind projects in Lake Ontario and the decision to block a controversial mega-quarry in Nova Scotia.
The report notes Canada has already lost or settled six claims and paid out damages totaling more than $170 million.

...Legal challenges by investors against national governments filed under NAFTA Chapter 11 over two decades:

Against Canada: 35
Against Mexico: 22
Against U.S.: 20

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 06:01 PM
a reply to: Elton

They do.
Corporations can, and do, sue our governments. ...I'm just looking at NAFTA so far - but we all know there's more. From just investment:

Canada and Mexico have so far been the biggest losers in this scheme. The U.S. government has faced several Chapter 11 lawsuits but has not lost a case. But all three countries have had to pay huge sums in legal costs, or in fees paid to arbitration courts. In all cases, the losers are ordinary citizens, because the money to placate corporations and pay these expenses comes from the public purse. And forever more, policymakers will have to think twice about passing any law to protect the public from corporate excesses.

posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 12:50 AM
Money is the key to their power, once you stop using their money, you stop giving them power. Growing your own food is a great way to start, never buy anything new and only buy second hand, trade services, put up solar panels--sure these are only small steps but if enough people stopped throwing money at the corporation then its power will wane.

We cant beat them with armies--they own the military industrial complex, the only way we can defeat them is with ideas.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in