Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Economy
Related: About this forumAFL-CIO says we need a much broader discussion of investment issues (like ISDS) in trade deals
Why Arent We Having a Public Debate on Investment Policies in the TTIP?
In early March, the AFL-CIO joined 42 other organizations representing labor, business, public health, environmental concerns, consumers, family farms and good governance as well as three legal scholars calling on the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to match the European Commissions commitment to holding a public consultation on investment issues, particularly with respect to the pending U.S.-European Union trade negotiations (known as the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP).
While the AFL-CIO has received no formal response, the USTR did post a blog explaining that it has already held extensive consultations regarding the TTIP, and with respect to investment issues in particular.
Unfortunately, the blog post failed to address the issues raised in the letter . . .
<snip>
Finally, the post fails to address the concrete concerns raised in the AFL-CIO letter about investment policy and the investor-state dispute-settlement process in particular:
-What rationale justifies the disparate treatment of domestic and foreign investors that ISDS provides?
-What rationale justifies the use of undemocratic, unaccountable panels of private lawyers to make decisions regarding whether the U.S. has breached an obligation to a foreign investor?
-Why are these panels not required to defer to U.S. law when they are making decisions about issues squarely covered by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
-Why do foreign investors receive special legal rights in trade agreements without taking on any obligations whatsoever?
-What justifies the $8 million in average costs that taxpayers incur to defend such cases?
More here: http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Global-Action/Why-Aren-t-We-Having-a-Public-Debate-on-Investment-Policies-in-the-TTIP
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 911 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
AFL-CIO says we need a much broader discussion of investment issues (like ISDS) in trade deals (Original Post)
OrwellwasRight
Apr 2014
OP
snot
(10,496 posts)1. K&R'd!
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)2. Thanks!
My trade posts too often drop like a stone.