Menu
Ireland's political and cultural magazine
VILLAGEApril/May
R
EMEMBER that referendum about
whether we should create a single
market with the United States? You
know, the one that asked whether corpora-
tions should have the power to strike down
our laws? No, I don’t either. After all that
agonising over EU Treaties, the government
wouldn’t cede our sovereignty to some shad-
owy, undemocratic body without consulting
us. Would it?
The purpose of the Transatlantic Trade
and Investment Partnership is to remove
the regulatory differences between the US
and European nations. Remarkably, it would
grant big business the right to sue the living
daylights out of governments which try to
defend their citizens. It would allow a secre-
tive panel of corporate lawyers to overrule
the will of parliament and destroy our legal
protections. Yet the defenders of our sover-
eignty say nothing.
The mechanism is called investor-state
dispute settlement. It’s already being used
in many parts of the world to kill regulations
protecting people and the living planet.
The Australian government, after massive
debates in and out of parliament, decided
that cigarettes should be sold in plain pack-
ets, marked only with shocking health
warnings. The decision was validated by
the Australian supreme court. But, using a
trade agreement Australia struck with Hong
Kong, the tobacco company Philip Morris
has asked an offshore tribunal to award it
a vast sum in compensation for the loss of
what it calls its intellectual property.
During its financial crisis, and in response
to public anger over rocketing charges,
Argentina imposed a freeze on people’s
ene rg y and w at er bi l ls (do es t h is so und fa m i l-
iar?). It was sued by the international utility
companies whose vast bills had prompted
the government to act. For this and other
such crimes, it has been forced to pay out
over a billion dollars in compensation.
In Canada, the courts revoked two pat-
ents owned by the US drugs firm Eli Lilly,
on the grounds that the company had not
produced enough evidence that they had the
beneficial effects it claimed. Eli Lilly is now
suing the Canadian government for $
million, and demanding that Canada’s pat-
ent laws are changed.
These companies (and hundreds of others)
are using the inves-
tor-state dispute
rules embedded in
trade treaties signed
by the countries they
are suing. The rules
are enforced by pan-
els which have none
of the safeguards we
expect in our own
courts. The hearings
are held in secret.
The judges are corpo-
rate lawyers, many of
whom work for cor-
porations of the kind
whose cases they
hear. Citizens and communities affected
by their decisions have no legal standing.
There is no right of appeal on the merits of
the case. Yet they can overthrow the sov-
ereignty of parliaments and the rulings of
supreme courts.
You don’t believe it? Here’s what one of
the judges on these tribunals says about his
work. “When I wake up at night and think
about arbitration, it never ceases to amaze
me that sovereign states have agreed to
investment arbitration at all … Three private
individuals are entrusted with the power to
review, without any restriction or appeal
procedure, all actions of the government,
all decisions of the courts, and all laws and
regulations emanating from parliament”.
There are no corresponding rights for citi-
zens. We can’t use these tribunals to demand
better protections from corporate greed.
As the Democracy Centre says, this is “a
privatised justice system for global corpo-
rations”. Even if these suits don’t succeed,
they can exert a powerful chilling effect on
legislation. One Canadian government offi-
cial, speaking about the rules introduced by
the North American Free Trade Agreement,
remarked, “I’ve seen the letters from the
New York and DC law firms coming up to
the Canadian government on virtually every
new environmental regulation and propo-
sition in the last five years. They involved
dry-cleaning chemicals, pharmaceuticals,
pesticides, patent law. Virtually all of the
new initiatives were targeted and most of
them never saw the light of day”. Democracy,
as a meaningful proposition, is impossible
under these circumstances.
This is the system to which we will be sub-
ject if the transatlantic treaty goes ahead.
The US and the European Commission, both
of which have been captured by the corpo-
rations they are supposed to
regulate, are pressing for inves-
tor-state dispute resolution to be
included in the agreement.
The Commission justifies this
policy by claiming that domestic
courts don’t offer corporations
sufficient protection because
they “might be biased or lack
independence”. Which courts
is it talking about? Those of the
US? Its own member states? It
doesn’t say. In fact it fails to pro-
duce a single concrete example
demonstrating the need for a
new, extra-judicial system. It is
precisely because our courts are
generally not biased or lacking
independence that the corpora-
tions want to replace them with
a closed, corrupt system riddled
with conflicts of interest and
arbitrary powers.
Investor-state rules could be
used to smash any attempt to re-
regulate the banks or leave fossil
fuels in the ground. These rules
shut down democratic alternatives. They
outlaw left-wing politics.
Wake up people, we’re being shafted. •
First published in the Guardian
www.monbiot.com
ENVIRONMENT TRADE
Transatlantic trade whatsit
Obscure treaty threatens a global ban on left-wing politics. By George Monbiot
Three private
individuals are
entrusted with
the power to
review, without
any restriction
or appeal
procedure, all
actions of the
government,
all decisions
of the courts,
and all laws
and regulations
emanating from
parliament
“
