INDEPENDENT NEWS

NZ Joins the Trend for Countries to Say No to ISDS

Published: Wed 1 Nov 2017 10:26 AM
NZ Joins the Trend for Countries to Say No to ISDS, Must Hold Firm in the TPPA
By Jane Kelsey
‘Yesterday’s announcement that the new government has heeded widespread concerns and taken investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) off the table in future trade and investment negotiations is a major step forward’, says University of Auckland law professor Jane Kelsey.
‘New Zealand joins a growing number of countries who have rejected the controversial process whereby foreign investors can enforce special protections against governments in private offshore tribunals and claim huge compensation for new regulations or even court decisions that significantly affect their commercial interests’.
‘The Prime Minister’s stronger language regarding the exclusion of ISDS from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is also welcome, but leaves too much wriggle-room to claim it has failed to convince others, and proceed with the original deal’, Professor Kelsey warns.
Both Viet Nam and Canada are known to want changes to the investment enforcement rules in the TPPA. There are plenty of precedents and mechanisms available.
The government would also have strong support from the legal community. In 2012 more than a hundred jurists, including senior retired judges from Australia and New Zealand, signed an open letter calling for ISDS to be excluded from the TPPA. (https://tpplegal.wordpress.com/open-letter/)
The main rationale for leaving the TPPA intact has been to make it easy for the US to re-join.
While no one currently thinks that likely, Professor Kelsey points to a deeper irony: ‘if the current US administration did re-engage with TPPA, it would require the ability to exempt itself from ISDS!’
‘In the current renegotiation of NAFTA, the US has proposed that each party should be able to opt out of ISDS altogether. The US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer told US corporations they should act like all other business and take out risk insurance to protect their commercial interests.’
Professor Kelsey called on the new government to stand firm in excluding ISDS from the Agreement, but points out there are many other aspects that remain problematic, including Labour’s own recognition before the election that the economics of the TPPA did not stack up, and that a broader review of the costs and benefits of the TPPA was necessary.
ENDS

Next in New Zealand politics

Gordon Campbell on the Commerce Commission fuel report
By: Gordon Campbell
Bill to allow licensed premises to stay open for RWC matches
By: New Zealand Government
KiwiBuild programme losing another top boss
By: RNZ
Helping our cities grow up and out
By: New Zealand Government
Ngāpuhi elder 'shocked' by conditions at Ngawha Prison
By: RNZ
Independent election policy costing unit a step closer
By: New Zealand Government
Primary and intermediate principals vote to accept new offer
By: NZEI
Breach of 'journalistic privilege' during unlawful search
By: Independent Police Conduct Authority
BSA releases decisions on coverage of mosque attacks
By: Broadcasting Standards Authority
UPDATE: Lack of fuel competition may be costing $400m
By: BusinessDesk
Breaking wholesale stranglehold on petrol supply
By: BusinessDesk
Commission releases draft report on retail fuel market
By: Commerce Commission
CommComm report will lead to more regulation, but same price
By: ACT New Zealand
MTA pumped with fuel market study findings
By: Motor Trade Association
Oil reserves budget blow out reason for quiet levy increase
By: NZ Energy and Environment Business Week
View as: DESKTOP | MOBILEWe're in BETA! Send Feedback © Scoop Media