European Court of Justice rejects all claims against the EU Tobacco Products Directive

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Azureblue

Welll you may be interested to know that according to Paul Craig Roberts, under the Trans Pacific Partnership all any company who is a signatory to the deal, will have to do, is claim that the action which is the subject of this thread, is a restraint on trade.

This is INCORRECT. Fortunately.

The precedent has already been set. Phillip Morris sued Australia on EXACTLY this issue and LOST. Completely and utterly. PM will probably have to pay Australia's costs.

Australia wins international legal battle with Philip Morris over plain packaging

The Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) in the TPP is virtually identical to the one in the Australia/Hong Kong treaty and the venues for hearing complaints are the same.

I don't like the ISDS features - they leave to much to be abused by venal companies like Phillip Morris and there are better avenues to use for international asset protections. However, I don't like simple minded untruths to drown out the actual problems with it. If your only argument is that it lets foreign companies override legitimate health regulation law then you will lose that argument. You need to argue from fact not from myth.

Thanks for your reply, but just a minor correction "incorrect" is incorrect," the good outcome against philip Morris was achieved before the TPP which was signed only a month or so ago.

The unfortunate issue is that after the first time the Australian govt get bitten by the TPP, they will never again dare take this sort of action in the first place. What govt wants to be emabrrassed by a cease and desist order by the TPP.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Azureblue

It reasonable and logically follows that the TIPP being negotiated or forced upon, depending on how you see it, europe; in likelihood contain similar provisions to the TPP.

That is also incorrect.

Early versions of the TIPP did include an ISDS. France objected and the negotiations stalled. They are still trying to figure out how to protect investment assets without it. There are other mechanisms than the ISDS, but you have to get agreement from everybody and they haven't got that settled yet.

The point is to protect foreign investment from nationalization or otherwise unreasonable seizure without removing the sovereign right of a nation to govern itself - in other words to prevent exactly that problem of foreign companies imposing their will on the legal governments.

Australia is 'big' enough to defend itself against Phillip Morris without being intimidated by a threat to take it to the ISDS. But someplace like Papua New Guinea or Nigeria or Honduras probably wouldn't be. The PM v Uruguay result will be interesting to look for.

"Incorrect" is too strong and emphatic word. Unlikely to be' is something I can accept but I still think thats the way it go.

cheers

a reply to: Azureblue

Thanks for your reply, but just a minor correction "incorrect" is incorrect," the good outcome against philip Morris was achieved before the TPP which was signed only a month or so ago.

What I said IS correct. Phillip Morris v Australia was brought under an Australian/Hong Kong bilateral trade agreement. You are correct too, the TPP doesn't have anything to do with it. However, the ISDS clause in Hong Kong agreement is virtually identical to the ISDS in the TPP and the list of venues for hearing such cases is identical.

Phillip Morris v Australia is an international precedent. It will be cited, if it hasn't already been, in Phillip Morris v Uruguay, for example.

While this is a good outcome for Australia and the world in general, it is only came about because Australia has the resources and maturity to fight it out. Tiny countries would never be able to stand up to the bribery and other corrupting influences that PM can bring to bear against them. ISDS is not, in my opinion, a good mechanism for securing international investments - its just way too blunt and open to abuse.

As an aside, Australia didn't take the action, they didn't sue PM, PM sued Australia.

a reply to: Azureblue

"Incorrect" is too strong and emphatic word. Unlikely to be' is something I can accept but I still think thats the way it go.

Well, I am not privy to what negotiations are going on at the moment and the current state of play.

I am aware that the TTIP negotiations were halted over the issue of the ISDS clause. France wanted it out, and it is out. Before the treaty can advance, they need to agree on a replacement mechanism. Other options exist; you can be sure it will be resolved, hopefully with something better.

Some kind of mechanism is required to reduce the risk of investments being confiscated by nations. If you are going to invest a squillion dollars in Northern Petrostan, you want to be sure that the government isn't going to nationalize your investment without compensation. On the other hand you can't have foreign companies dictate to sovereign nations what they can and cannot legislate to improve the lives of their citizens. The ISDS accomplishes the first problem, but leaves the second option open.

Dontcha just love being a child as an adult? Thank you parental governments everywhere for freedoms of choice.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Azureblue

"Incorrect" is too strong and emphatic word. Unlikely to be' is something I can accept but I still think thats the way it go.

Well, I am not privy to what negotiations are going on at the moment and the current state of play.

I am aware that the TTIP negotiations were halted over the issue of the ISDS clause. France wanted it out, and it is out. Before the treaty can advance, they need to agree on a replacement mechanism. Other options exist; you can be sure it will be resolved, hopefully with something better.

Some kind of mechanism is required to reduce the risk of investments being confiscated by nations. If you are going to invest a squillion dollars in Northern Petrostan, you want to be sure that the government isn't going to nationalize your investment without compensation. On the other hand you can't have foreign companies dictate to sovereign nations what they can and cannot legislate to improve the lives of their citizens. The ISDS accomplishes the first problem, but leaves the second option open.

Some kind of mechanism is required to reduce the risk of investments being confiscated by nations. - Something of an odd concern considering that the history of nationalisation of private businesses is somewhat rare.

Cant help think this is masking something else or some other agenda. It would seem to me that nationalisation of business might on the cards in some countries where very serious and long tasking damage has to been done to the environment. Should this be the case then it would seem that "Some kind of mechanism is required to reduce the risk of investments being confiscated by nations." might be the only barrier there is to international immunity to environmental damage is the threat of nationalisation of such projects and assets in lieu of damages for egregious environmental damage.

Should that be the case then I for one would that this condition would not be agreed to . Laws and courts may have their place but are not necessary efficient or effective.

I saw a doco a few years ago on the Exon Valdez where after 15 years and 4-5 suicides in a 3-400 people fishing town, Exxon eventually paid out 3 days worth of profits as damages.

it would appear that, should my suspicions be accurate, that big business regards such penalties as excessive and so they want immunize themselves from such penalties. I for one sure hope they are not successful in achieving such an outcome.