Think Tank Fellow Challenges Common ISDS Criticisms
Contrary to some assertions, investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms in trade agreements don’t favor large corporations, deplete U.S. national sovereignty or cramp governments’ abilities to regulate, Stimson Center distinguished fellow Bill Reinsch said in an opinion column countering criticism of…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
ISDS in trade deals (here). “To attack ISDS in the name of sovereignty is to take the world back to the law of the jungle that is not rule of law based,” Reinsch said. “That may save us an occasional loss, but it will leave our companies defenseless in many countries, which will do far more damage, both to us -- and everybody else.” Furthermore, small businesses file most ISDS claims under free trade agreements, and dispute arbitration panels can’t compel countries to change their laws, Reinsch noted. Writing careful language into trade deals can address other ISDS criticisms, such as lack of transparency, tendencies for biased or unqualified arbiters, and overlap with outside judicial systems, he said. Myriad environmental groups (see 1606070038), including the Sierra Club (see 1503160010), as well as the EU (see 1501140016), labor union leaders (see 1410210028) and several left-leaning politicians -- like presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt. (see 1605060026), and Reps. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn. (see 1504090057), and Sandy Levin, D-Mich. (see 1503300013) -- have expressed opinions not in support of trade agreements’ ISDS provisions, ranging from skepticism to vehement opposition.