Talk:Investor–state dispute settlement/Archives/2015

NPOV

IMHO the arguments against ISDS are not properly balanced by arguments in favor of them. Investors may feel a justified need to act against rogue states not respecting their rights.

The argument that ISDS decisions may override democratic decisions is nothing special. Constitutional courts correct democratic decisions all the time. Remember that Hitler came to power by a democratic decision - but unfortunately no opportunity existed at the time to challenge his decisions in court! Private parties may invoke courts to challenge government decisions, that is normal nowadays.

The issue here is that these conflicts will be settled in a separate court from the courts linked to the state. MaximusVanellus (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the prime problem is the opacity of the procedure and the lack of a procedure to challenge the independence of the panels. That is badly needed since the legal issues in these conflict are complicated.

If a firm must close overnight due to a law that was adopted unexpectedly by the government, some compensation seems justified. But firms producing controversial products (from nuclear power plants to cigarettes) could be prepared for changes in legislation. Firms recruiting women in Eastern Europe to work in the see industry even more so. Rbakels (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hitler as an argument pro ISDS. Seriously?! 194.232.72.121 (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Independent judiciairy

Article mentions lawyers who are not accountable to the public. Lawyers are never accountable to the public. Whether they should be is another issue. MaximusVanellus (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

There is much more to the issue of independent judges than this article suggests (arbitors also working as lawyers). MaximusVanellus (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)