Study Shows Risks Of Including Corporate Sovereignty In The 'Other' Huge Asian Trade Deal, RCEP
Furnished content.
As we've noted, TPP is unlikely to come back from the dead, despite what some seem to think or hope. For example, the Japanese government has decided to go ahead and ratify TPP anyway. That seems foolish, since it has just thrown away most of its bargaining counters for other trade negotiations, in what amounts to an act of political seppuku. As Sean Flynn points out, Japan has form here, since it also ratified the infamous Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), just as pointlessly.One of the most important trade deals still under active discussion is the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). Techdirt first wrote about this 18 months ago, while recently we noted that many of its provisions are even worse than those in TPP. One aspect of RCEP that has received little attention so far is the corporate sovereignty chapter. The Transnational Institute (TNI) has put together a useful document looking at what it calls the "hidden costs" of including investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) in RCEP. It provides an excellent summary of corporate sovereignty activity in Asia that complements a 2014 study from Friends of the Earth Europe, which looked at the same "hidden costs" of ISDS in Europe. Here are a few of the main findings for RCEP nations (pdf):50 investment arbitration cases already filed against 11 RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) countries since 1994, over 50% of which have been filed after 2010.
India alone has been the target of 40% of the cases filed against RCEP countries.
Foreign investors have claimed at least 31 billion USD from RCEP countries. Given the secrecy surrounding investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) proceedings, this could be much more. This amount is 7 billion USD less than India's entire health budget for 2015.
Of the 31 billion USD claimed by investors, 81% has been claimed from just four countries, India, South Korea, Australia and Vietnam.
The largest known amount paid to a foreign Investor by an RCEP country is 337 million USD as part of the settlement in the Cemex versus Indonesia case.
36% of cases against RCEP countries concern environmentally relevant sectors.
RCEP countries have been sued for measures taken to protect public health, adjust corporate taxes, promote industrialisation, and review contracts acquired through allegations of corruption, among others. The study brings together much-needed data on corporate sovereignty cases in Asia. It also points outs why RCEP countries would be very unwise to sign up to an ISDS chapter in the deal:Including the harmful ISDS clause in the RCEP trade agreement under negotiation contributes to cementing investors' rights and expanding the scope of private arbitrators' power. RCEP will lock in place this system of privatised justice. Governments will find it much more difficult to withdraw their commitments to the rights accorded to foreign investors in RCEP than in Bilateral Investment Treaties, because they would need to put an end to the whole agreement and not just the sections on investors' rights. It's a general problem with ISDS provisions in trade deals: they are almost impossible to cancel, however much harm they end up causing. The bigger the deal, the greater the lock-in. This aspect underlines once more how corporate sovereignty comes at the expense of national sovereignty.Finally, there's one other interesting nugget that Techdirt readers may find of note. According to the RCEP report, over two-thirds of all ISDS cases against RCEP nations have come from Europe. At the moment, there are only a few minor trade deals that allow European companies to sue the US in ISDS tribunals, in theory at least. But if some kind of post-Trump TTIP 2.0 were agreed -- always a possibility despite the anti-trade deal rhetoric -- and it included a corporate sovereignty chapter, the US might find itself on the receiving end of a similar barrage of costly lawsuits that will reduce its sovereignty at both a national and local level.Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read more here
posted at: 12:00am on 13-Dec-2016
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
State Court Tells Cops Obtaining Consent Not Enough To Fix Suspicionless Vehicle Search
Furnished content.
Without citing the Supreme Court's Rodriguez decision, the Superior Court of Delaware has returned a ruling [PDF] that should serve as a deterrent to law enforcement fishing expeditions. (h/t FourthAmendment.com)Two state courts recently held that extending an interaction beyond the objective of a traffic stop is unconstitutional, pointing out that it's not the length of the constitutional violation that's a problem, but the violation itself. There is no de minimis Fourth Amendment violation acceptable under the Rodriguez decision.The court here could have found similarly but didn't even have to make it as far as the Supreme Court's decision to find the officers' post-traffic stop actions unconstitutional.The defendant seeking suppression of evidence was pulled over for speeding. Everything about the stop was completely normal. As the court sees it -- according to the officers' own testimony and reports -- there was nothing else for them to do but issue a speeding citation.Officer Hamilton stopped the defendant (John Geist) and asked for the usual documents. These were provided and the citation was written up. Six minutes after the initiation of the stop, Officer Hamilton to Geist he was free to go. Another officer showed up during the stop and asked Geist if he had any questions. Geist asked the officer what the dollar amount of the speeding fine was.The stop's objective had been achieved and Geist had presented nothing that amounted to reasonable suspicion to justify further questioning. But Officer Hamilton proceeded with more questions, almost all of them focused on getting Geist to consent to a search of his vehicle.At that point, the engagement of all aspects of the speeding violation had completed. Nevertheless, Officer Hamilton spontaneously asked Defendant if he had any weapons or drugs in his vehicle. Other than an unspecific “thought that he might be under the influence of alcohol,” Officer Hamilton had utterly no basis for any suspicion that Defendant was transporting anything untoward. On Defendant’s negative reply, Officer Hamilton asked Defendant if he could search the automobile. Defendant, after a fashion, consented. Consent normally cures a lot of Fourth Amendment ills. But not in this case. Law enforcement isn't allowed to push for searches it has no articulable reasons to pursue.Certainly, if there had existed any reasonable suspicion on the part of Officer Hamilton that any such contraband were present, a warrant to search, at least arguably, could have been obtained, and consent of the Defendant would have substituted entirely adequately. There was, however, in this case, utterly no basis for any such suspicion. The state argued that a lack of suspicion shouldn't matter because the officer obtained consent for a search. It argued there were no coercive factors to tip the scale towards unconstitutionality. The court points out something few courts have: that the imbalance of power between law enforcement officers and members of the general public is its own form of coercion.To say that a reasonable person, standing at the instruction of the officer outside of his vehicle, while wearing sandals, shorts and no shirt, confronting two fully uniformed and armed officers would feel no coercion effect simply flies in the face of reality. In that situation, “Mind if I look around” is not really a question. It is tantamount to the statement: “I’m going to look in your car to see if you’re telling the truth.” The coercion is the situation. As to the state's assertion that a lack of reasonable suspicion shouldn't result in the suppression of a search for which consent was obtained, the court cites an earlier case that declared drivers aren't expected to put up with being harassed and harangued into "consensual" searches just because they've committed a moving violation.“Travelers on our State highways should not be subjected to the harassment, embarrassment, and inconvenience of an automobile search following a routine traffic stop unless the officers has at least an articulable suspicion that the search will yield evidence of illegal activity.” Fishing license revoked. The court never had to approach the Supreme Court's decision because it found the officers' actions wholly unreasonable given the facts of the case. Another win for drivers -- albeit one that it limited to Delaware residents and does nothing to prevent officers from using made-up laws to initiate traffic stops and all of the consensual jousting that usually comes packed with it.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read more here
posted at: 12:00am on 13-Dec-2016
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
|
|