What the Heck Is ISDS and Why Is It a Brazen Corporate Giveaway?

ISDS really seems like an over-the-top corporate give-away that has no place governments that adhere to democratic values. How it is defended with a straight face by members of the US government, I will never understand.

AFL-CIO NOW Blog: What the Heck Is ISDS and Why Is It a Brazen Corporate Giveaway?

Since the late July negotiating round that failed to reach a final deal for the corporate-leaning Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal, a lot has been written about the merits of a purported ISDS carve-out and whether it played a role in the failed effort to complete a deal by July 31. (Don’t know much about the TPP? Learn more.)

What is ISDS?

ISDS stands for “investor-to-state dispute settlement,” as distinguished from “state-to-state dispute settlement,” which is how most international trade disputes are resolved.

For example, if working people want to enforce the labor provisions of a trade agreement, we have to petition our government and ask it to pursue a state-to-state case for us. Most recently, it took the administration nearly three years to produce an initial report evaluating whether to even move forward to informal talks over Honduras’ egregious labor rights violations.

In contrast, under ISDS, investors don’t need government permission or preliminary investigations. If they want to bring a case, they bring a case. Period. The U.S. already has ISDS in some existing trade and investment treaties, such as NAFTA. Now the U.S. is trying to cover Japan, Australia, Malaysia and other countries with ISDS through the TPP.

More here: http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Political-Action-Legislation/What-the-Heck-Is-ISDS-and-Why-Is-It-a-Brazen-Corporate-Giveaway

One thing I do know is that capitalism requires risk -- if investors who invest overseas don't want to take risks, perhaps they should not invest there, or perhaps they should take out insurance at their own expense, or perhaps they should negotiate their own deal with the host government that does not undermine our rule of law by allowing foreign companies to opt out of our courts. It is not the taxpayers' responsibility to bail them out for any losses they incur. That's not capitalism; it sounds a lot more like fascism to me.