
Leaked TPP Investment Chapter Reveals Serious Threat to User Safeguards - ghosh
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/leaked-tpp-investment-chapter-reveals-serious-threat-user-safeguards
======
natch
In English, anyone?

It's really hard to follow this. I realize they are trying to make it an
explanation that normal (but interested) people can read. But it's not
working.

Maybe an example up front would help. Something like: If this is enacted, then
... (some common use case involving fair use and how it would be impacted).

I know it takes a lawyer to read this stuff. But they should maybe pass it
through a couple of layers of translation to try to communicate what it means,
so that people can get on board with opposing it, if that's the right thing to
do. If EFF can't communicate this stuff, who can?

~~~
pdkl95
The comic[1] that I posted in the previous thread has a nice overview about
the situation.

The specific issue the EFF article is pointing out is how the ISDS is designed
to trumps national sovereignty, so business can strong-arm countries into
removing any law they don't like.

It works more or less like this:

1) pass TPP as a _treaty_ , which by definition has the same power as a
constitutional amendment. (this is probably a serious bug in the
constitution). This means TPP trums congress.

2) TPP sets up an international tribunal (ISDS) that hears complaints from
businesses. (i.e. "Australia is hurting our tobacco sales with their plain
packaging laws"[2])

3) The tribunal, as mentioned in this article, would be staffed by, "three
private-sector attorneys who take turns being the judge and the corporate
advocate." This conflict of interest would be a serious violation of ethics
requirements in most legal systems.

4) The tribunal rules that your local law violates some _foreign_ requirement,
as determined by the ISDS and their business-assigned judges, and the local
legislature is forced to repeal the law. ("Australia's plain packaging laws is
seizing the trademarks of Philip Moriss, in violation of a 1993 trade
agreement if we carefully abuse the agreement's language")

That's the short version, and I'm leaving out some details, of course. It
should work as a decent overview of ISDS is a threat to national sovereignty.

[1] [http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/](http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/)

[2] this example is covered well by John Oliver:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UsHHOCH4q8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UsHHOCH4q8)

edit: oops.. s/ISPS/ISDS/

~~~
rayiner
Treaties do not have "the same power as a Constitutional amendment." They have
the same power as ordinary laws. See:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Money_Cases](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Money_Cases).
And the Constitution takes precedence over both: Reid v. Covert. If they are
not self-effectuating and Congress does not pass enabling legislation, they
have no domestic effect. See:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_v._Texas](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_v._Texas).

~~~
gcb0
...because you don't see any laws that goes against the constitution being
ruled everyday.

------
hurin
Why do I feel like some of the EFF articles are distinctly one-sided when it
comes to certain topics? For example what about illegal government
expropriation or interest-based selective-quasi-legal interference in economic
affairs (i.e. Yukos) - or rampant ignorance of patent and copyright laws
(various Chinese Manufacturers).

Unfortunately when an issue is presented entirely black and white as:

 _confer expansive powers on corporations and undermine democratic rules_

 _we cannot let such a secretive, corporate-driven agency to pass digital
regulations in secret._

 _etc. etc._

It's hard to come away with any real understanding of the issues at hand.

Disclaimer: I am longtime supporter and EFF member.

~~~
snowwrestler
I have a similar feeling, but I think the answer is that the EFF _is_ a one-
sided organization--their mission is to form opinions on these topics and
fight for what they think is right.

I think of them as an "advocacy" nonprofit, and there are plenty of those on
the other side as well, trying to make their case against things like
government expropriation. The balanced view, to the extent it can exist, would
be somewhere between the two sides; each listener synthesizes their own
balance point, I guess.

------
walterbell
_> These tribunals are usually comprised of three private-sector attorneys who
take turns being the judge and the corporate advocate._

Have alternate structures been considered for these extranational
tribunals/courts, e.g. who represents the public interest? How would the
public grant legitimacy to a secret commercial court which regulates Internet
content, for example?

~~~
Lawtonfogle
Why would they consider such? Those who should be representing the public
interest in these discussions have clearly been bought out already. And being
so secretive, why would they need to even pretend to put in place any
safeguards for public interest?

~~~
walterbell
What will happen when international laws which defy reason start being
enforced, and are not understood or supported by the national public or their
national legislators?

~~~
SCHiM
Yes, Dutch "look-the-other-way" laws related to recreational marijuana use
come to my mind (guess where I live). It's no secret that neighbouring
countries are not happy with the drug policy in the Netherlands. And Europe
puts pressure on the government to change the laws.

I don't know everything about all _these_ secret negotiations, but the feeling
I get when I look at all the past attempts at these super-national laws and
treaties is that I dislike and distrust them.

I remember that during the world cup football in South Afrika a group of Dutch
women were arrested because they showed up in a stadium dressed in the
'Bavaria jurkjes' (lousely translates to 'Bavaria dresses')[0]. Fifa had
super-national laws in place, some of them regarding advertisement. It was
apparently illegal for companies to advertise in the stadium during the
matches except for the official sponsors. The dresses were seen as
advertisement and the people wearing them were arrested.

The women said they were unaware of any advertisement going on, and were just
wearing their countries colours.

[0] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-
cup/7830319/...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-
cup/7830319/World-Cup-2010-Police-arrest-women-in-Dutch-orange-dresses.html)

Edit:

I don't doubt that this was a marketing stunt, still, I decide what I wear and
where I do it. Not some entertainment company that should only be concerned
with running the sports event and not the money grubbing.

~~~
Silhouette
I don't know about that specific instance, but often the kind of shenanigans
you're talking about are a separate issue: genuine, national laws are passed
by the national government, because they are insisted upon by the
international professional bodies as a condition of awarding a major
competition to a given host nation.

As it happens, I have never understood why prospective host nations allow
themselves to be bullied in this way. It is a transparent betrayal of their
own populations in favour of big business. Moreover, pragmatically, a lot of
these sporting events make an enjoyable spectacle for a lot of people over the
few days they last for, but they rarely bring the supposed long term benefits
that justify all the hoop-jumping involved in hosting them, and in plenty of
cases their legacy has been serious financial and/or infrastructure problems
for the host nation.

So yes, it seems long past time for organisations like the IOC and FIFA to be
reminded of their place or told to take a hike and host their next
international event in West Nowheria. But this is a separate issue to some of
the current terms being considered for international agreements, which would
reportedly allow _any_ business that didn't like a national policy to sue the
national government and recover lost profits in any signatory state.

------
joachimdorel
Did the TPP risks to harm both Europeans and Americans, or only one side?

~~~
saganus
I think it risks to harm everyone. At least based on the EFF's analysis since
IANAL.

It sounds like this will make it easier for corporations to extort signatory
countries.

As I see it, it will probably promote patent trolls, draconian copyright laws
that will be extremely favorable to corporations, etc.

This is really not good at all.

~~~
happyscrappy
If it is so bad then why is the EU signing on?

~~~
AC__
Exactly, Canada(my native country) has already signed, any Canadian citizen
that is aware, is opposed. We also have a bill currently tabled in Canadian
parliament called Bill C-51 which is an absolutely absurd piece of
legislation, it will effectively muzzle all lawful protest in Canada because
it will allow the government to deem a project "critical infrastructure" at
will and anyone protesting then falls under the blanket definition of
terrorist and can be detained for up to a year without access to legal
counsel. At the same time they are introducing changes to informant protection
laws that will allow them to literally enter evidence from completely
anonymous sources i.e. completely fabricated lol. Sadly we no longer practice
democracy in my country.

