Multiple Countries Reject Investor-State (2013 Update)

By Janet M Eaton, PhD, January 24th, 2014

A widespread and significant controversy has emerged on a global scale over investor rights and privileges and the Investor -State dispute mechanism found in the investment chapters of Free Trade Agreements [FTAs] and Bilateral Investment Treaties [BITS]. There are many reasons for the concerns over Investor -State including, what many critics see as, its unethical, unfair, undemocratic, unsustainable and even unconstitutional nature giving undue power to transnational corporations over governments and public policy, thereby placing profit before people and the environment. The UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the United Nations body responsible for dealing with development issues, particularly international trade, acknowledges huge flaws in the Investor State arbitration system:

Sovereignty fears lead to EU-US trade rethink

By Oliver Wright, January 20,  2014

The European Commission is to rethink its approach to a controversial US trade deal which campaign groups have warned would fundamentally erode Britain’s sovereignty. 

Under the deal being negotiated by US and EU officials, multinational firms would be given wide-ranging powers to sue EU governments that adopt policies deemed to “discriminate” against free trade.

Groups including Greenpeace and the TUC have warned that the treaty’s provisions will have far-reaching consequences – limiting the UK’s freedom to tackle climate change, protect consumers or even guarantee a publicly run NHS.

The Global Fight Against Corporate Rule

Robin Broad and John Cavanagh | January 14, 2014

Over the past several decades, multinational corporate Goliaths have helped to write and rewrite hundreds of rules skewing tax, trade, investment and other policies in their favor. The extraordinary damage these policies have caused has become increasingly apparent to the communities and governments most directly affected by them. This, in turn, has strengthened the potential of a movement that’s emerging to try to reverse the momentum. But just like David with his slingshot, the local, environmental and government leaders seeking to revise rules to favor communities and the planet must pick their battles carefully. 

Jan 31: Inter-continental day of action vs TPP & corporate globalization

NO MORE NAFTAs! 20 YEARS IS ENOUGH!
Inter-Continental Day of Action against the TPP & Corporate Globalization

Friday, January 31, 2014

This is a call to action for communities throughout Mexico, Canada and the United States to join together on January 31, 2014, and say "ENOUGH!" to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, and other corporate "trade" deals. Solidarity actions elsewhere throughout the globe are welcome.

Philip Morris, Australia and the fate of Europe’s trade talks

By James Panichi, posted 13-January-2014.  

Australia’s clash with Philip Morris over plain packaging has disrupted trade talks between the United States and Europe, reports James Panichi in Brussels

IT isn’t often that Australia rates a mention in the European Union’s corridors of power. And that’s no bad thing: the long-running diplomatic stoushes with Canberra over agriculture and market access are seen here as water under the bridge. No news is definitely good news.

Patents, Public Health, and International Law: The Eli Lilly NAFTA Chapter 11 Case

Policy Forum,January 16, 2014 11:00AM,Hayek Auditorium
Featuring Burcu Kilic, Legal Counsel, Public Citizen Global Access to Medicine Program; Christopher Sands, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute; and Mark Schultz, Associate Professor, Southern Illinois University School of Law, and Senior Scholar, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, George Mason University School of Law; moderated by Simon Lester, Trade Policy Analyst, Herbert A.

Secret TPP treaty: Environment Chapter for all 12 nations (23pp) WikiLeaks release: January 15, 2014

Description
This is the confidential draft treaty chapter from the Environment Working Group of the Trans-PacificPartnership (TPP) talks between the United States, Japan, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Chile,Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, New Zealand and Brunei Darussalam. The treaty is being negotiated in secret by delegations from each of the 12 countries, who together account for 40% of global GDP.

TPPA Environment Chapter & Chair's Commentary Posted by WikiLeaks Issues for NZ1- Prof Jane Kelsey

By Professor Jane Kelsey, January 16th , 2014

The consolidated draft text of the Environment chapter of the Trans-Pacific partnership Agreement and the accompanying chair’s commentary have been posted in Wikileaks (http://wikileaks.org/tpp-enviro). The documents are dated 24 November 2013, the final day of the Salt Lake City round in November.

The chair’s commentary records the countries that objected to, and in some cases that supported, different aspects of the text. They are consistent with the chart (https://wikileaks.org/IMG/pdf/tpp-salt-lake-positions.pdf) that Wikileaks posted in December showing one country’s assessment of the 12 countries’ positions on many TPPA issues.

TPP Environment Chapter Wikileaks: Press release: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) - Environment Chapter

Today, 15 January 2014, WikiLeaks released the secret draft text for the entire TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) Environment Chapter and the corresponding Chairs' Report. The TPP transnational legal regime would cover 12 countries initially and encompass 40 per cent of global GDP and one-third of world trade. The Environment Chapter has long been sought by journalists and environmental groups. The released text dates from the Chief Negotiators' summit in Salt Lake City, Utah, on 19-24 November 2013.

Report: Trade with Europe... But not at any cost

Support for the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) drops when people find out what’s in the deal

Public opinion polls consistently show high support (between 70 and 80 per cent) for the idea of a Canada-European Union free trade agreement. And really, who wouldn’t support more trade with a large and relatively prosperous economy such as Europe? The problem with these polls is that they don’t ask the deeper questions about the type of trade agreement Canada is signing.