EPTThe Vattenfall case was later settled out of court, so they pretty much handed over tax payer money to a company without any actual legal justification whatsoever.
European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 74
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
The Vattenfall case was later settled out of court, so they pretty much handed over tax payer money to a company without any actual legal justification whatsoever. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
also, settlement doesn't mean a case was without legal justification. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
And obviously settlements can be legal, but only if they happen within the actual public legal system, with appointed judges and codified public law. The judges of these arbitration courts are, if I'm correctly informed random private persons, there is no codified law, it's simply completely shady and not within the realm of how legal matters are supposed to be resolved here. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
italicizing stuff doesn't make an argument. i don't know how civil law country works all that much but you guys should be even more reliant on judges and arbitration than common law places. your government passed this treaty, you can't go back on it just because. from this background paper on the nucular plant case, While the Energy Charter Treaty provides investment protection in a specific sector and Germany is bound by this treaty, it is not the only investment treaty that binds Germany. In fact, the first modern bilateral investment treaty was entered into between Germany and Pakistan in 1959. That treaty became the model for what is now over 3000 investment treaties concluded around the globe. Germany’s 1959 investment treaty did not have one important feature, however: It did not give the foreign investor the right to directly sue the state hosting the investment. The more recent treaties, including the Energy Charter Treaty, typically allow for private parties (investors) to directly initiate arbitration with host states, using what is known as an investor-state dispute mechanism. This procedure contrasts with the process for trade law disputes, for example in the WTO, which are strictly state-to-state. Today, Germany has over 130 bilateral investment treaties, making it the country with the largest number of such treaties in the world. Since the older German bilateral agreements do not provide investors the right to sue, Germany is in process of re-negotiating its older investment treaties to incorporate this right. seems like it's a situation of improved legal protection. http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2009/background_vattenfall_vs_germany.pdf * This paper was commissioned by Greenpeace Germany | ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
what if they had a good case? the nuke company has rights too. then they could go to a real court. the TTIP debate sadly has been dominated by fear mongering about chlor chickens, which is the reason why real issues like the arbitration court and the lack of transparency and others were somewhat ignored what's exactly so horrible about creating an international system for adjudicating investor-state disputes? how is this undemocratic? the idea is not horrible, the implementation is | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
On March 24 2015 07:28 oneofthem wrote: are you unfamiliar with arbitration or administrative courts? not that they necessarily need to go to some sort of international institution, but in a dispute between a foreign investor and a state, international arbitration court seems like an acceptable arrangement because of the jurisdiction problem with using international treaty in a domestic court. like i said, i dont dispute the idea, but the implementation e: ok, i somewhat also dispute the idea, but mostly the current implementation | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you guys can repeal the treaty or something but when a foreign investor is acting with reliance on that treaty it seems unfair to go back on it without some compensation. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
On March 24 2015 07:37 oneofthem wrote: the part of the implementation you challenge seems to be the very existence of arbitration courts using international treaty rather than domestic law. no, what makes you believe that? the part of the implementation i challenge are mainly the lack of transparency, the little amount of people involved (3), the small pool of people which are usually involved, the impossibility of a revision and the recent history of pro comapny decisions and the abuse of the intention of its original implementation. | ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
On March 24 2015 07:43 oneofthem wrote: uh how did foreign corporations write the law? did they act as parties to the treaty? they act as a lobby which influences the treaty | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
I don't even think there is need for these kind of courts, as I said before, if a company thinks that investment security is too low here, bon voyage go and invest somewhere else. A viable alternative would be to create some kind of European trade court, with appointed judges, transparent law and have the public or at least the representatives vote on it. That's usually how it works if new institutions are created. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 24 2015 07:46 Paljas wrote: no, what makes you believe that? the part of the implementation i challenge are mainly the lack of transparency, the little amount of people involved (3), the small pool of people which are usually involved, the impossibility of a revision and the recent history of pro comapny decisions and the abuse of the intention of its original implementation. arbitration is normally a private process and this facilitates dealmaking. some of the evidence can be sensitive trade secrets and i really don't see a legitimate public interest reason to make this public. the case law governing economic treaty does seem to be pro-investor, but not every investor is some big company. again, international treaties and international law in general are not undemocratic, state sovereigns are simply not given the usual degree of privilege and immunity as they have in domestic courts, and this is a result of treaty obligations. your idea of transparent law seems to be very subjectively dependent on political whims. that's not how your domestic court works, so why expect it of an international institution? also this, I don't even think there is need for these kind of courts, as I said before, if a company thinks that investment security is too low here, bon voyage go and invest somewhere else. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
..which is pretty much the definition of 'less democratic', but with more words repeal the treaty and they'll go elsewhere, but in the meantime you can't just ignore the treaty. Yeah, I'm not disagreeing, but we shouldn't make the same mistake and sign any more of these treaties, because with a country the size of the US we're going to have this crap every second week | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
arbitrary is normally a private process and this facilitates dealmaking. some of the evidence can be sensitive trade secrets and i really don't see a legitimate public interest reason to make this public. it depends on the case, but there certainly can exist a legitimate public interest to make it public/more transparent. the parties involved are not just to private agents, but also the state, aka the representative of the public. again, international treaties and international law in general are not undemocratic i never disputed that. in fact, i am a big friend of international law and treaties in certain cases. | ||
| ||
