Except, of course, when we aren't:
The most important issue for the majority of members . . . is the proposal by the U.S. to apply ISDS to Investment Agreements and Investment Authorizations. The United States, as in previous rounds, has shown no flexibility on its proposal, being one of the most significant barriers to closing the chapter, since under the concept of Investment Agreement nearly all significant contracts that can be made between a State and a foreign investor are included.Ir covers important concessions including mining, administrative or special operating contracts for hydrocarbon exploration, public works concessions (roads, highways, bridges, infrastructure, etc.), and it would override the choice of forum provisions in these contracts . . .
Only the U.S. and Japan support the proposal, while the rest expressed their objections to the proposal and have tried to explore ideas to refine the concept and make some reservations about the choice of forum in contracts, but the U.S. has shown no signs of flexibility.
I am guessing you can figure out where this is going, but for those not keeping score at home, we are essentially trying to bully a bunch of smaller countries to effectively immunize U.S.-based multinationals from the laws of nations that host them. What it means is, if some democratically elected foreign government---like, say, Bolivia---decides to nationalize its mining operations and kicks out the Acme-American Mining Company that's been extracting billions of dollars of wealth out of the country, Acme-American Mining Company would have the right to sue Bolivia for damages before an offshore arbitration panel consisting of corporate lawyers, one of whom might happen to be an employee of Acme-American Mining Company. The arbitration hearing would occur in secret, and there would be no right of appeal. If this sounds like an outrage, well, guess what? It's already happening because this provision is embedded in a lot of existing "free-trade" agreements. It's depressing to think that a "liberal" Democratic administration is playing hardball for a provision that is so morally repugnant, or that we would need to rely on the opposition of countries like Mexico and Peru to preserve our own national sovereignty. But it appears as though our little brown brothers aren't sold on the idea, and if we're lucky, they'll kill it. But it won't be easy since Uncle Sam generally doesn't take "no" for an answer.
---Baron V
Comments