[GA - Illegal] ISDS Ban

Status
Not open for further replies.
Caius

Caius

The Minister
-
-
-
Pronouns
He/Him
TNP Nation
United States of Dictators
Discord
cayus.code
ga.jpg

ISDS Ban
Category: Social Justice | Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Tinhampton | Onsite Topic​

Whereas fundamental sapient rights should not be literally or metaphorically sold to the highest bidder, the General Assembly hereby:

  1. defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
    1. an "FTA" as a bilateral or multilateral free trade agreement that includes at least one member state,
    2. "regular courts" as domestic courts and any court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee, and
    3. an "investor-state dispute settlement mechanism," henceforth an ISDS mechanism, as any mechanism included in an FTA which has the effect of allowing any legal person to file suit against any party to that FTA outside of regular courts, but which does not allow any other entity to file such suit, nor allows any state party to that FTA to file suit against any legal person outside of regular courts,
  2. forbids the establishment of future ISDS mechanisms,
  3. requires that all ISDS mechanisms currently in operation be disbanded, and
  4. strongly urges legal persons who believe that their rights have been violated to seek redress in regular courts.
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

ForAgainstAbstainPresent
31601
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In my very limited knowledge of ISDSs they provide an avenue to remedy a dispute between a foreign investor and the state where none would usually exist. Like in cases where local law either doesn't offer protections, provides for sovereign or crown immunity, or worse yet there is a distinct lack of judicial independence in the state where the investment was made. Any of those would make seeking a remedy from the local courts impossible.

Are ISDSs perfect? Probably not, but further legislation and regulation would be the answer, not an outright ban on the practice.
 
Last edited:
For

Gathering information from the ISDS Platform FAQ, it seems that the ISDS system was created initially to protect former colonizers’ assets. It also creates a business-friendly judicial system.

OOCly, I do not support colonialism or corruption in business.

ICly, since I am an imperial nation, the colonizers’ assets thing is not hated by the empress, but the business-friendly part definitely ticks her highness off.

Therefore, I have to vote for.
 
Tinhampton:
Since a few of you don't understand what this is for, I'll just repost the links to A/70/285, A/HRC/30/44, A/HRC/33/40 and the ISDS Platform FAQ that I put in the gameside OP.
Click to expand...

Strongly against. Quite frankly this resolution DIRECTLY HURTS the borrowers (such as poorer countries) that this resolution purports to help and both the resolution and the web sites cited betrays a misunderstanding of international finance and how (for example) fixed income instruments of different jurisdictions are priced.

In a nutshell, (1) ISDS mechanisms (to use the terminology of the resolution) protect investors that may otherwise not consider at all (or would have to charge higher interest rates) in investing in emerging markets with weaker legal protection and this resolution deprives the emerging markets of this opportunity. For example, in real life, trillions of dollars of international bonds are issued under the laws of England and Wales with arbitration (usually in London but also Singapore say). (2) The use of binding arbitration significantly reduces legal costs for all parties concerned. There are some abuses about the use of binding arbitration (especially in employment in the US) but that does not detract from the ability of ISDS mechanisms to reduce borrowing costs for emerging markets and companies based in emerging markets.

ISDS mechanisms have benefited billions of people worldwide indirectly through lower cost of funding, and this resolution seeks to make developing countries significantly poorer by making borrowing more expensive for them.
 
Last edited:
This proposal has achieved the requisite approvals to enter the formal queue. Barring it being withdrawn or marked illegal, it will proceed to a vote at Major Update on Friday, April 30.
 
Last edited:
Anne of Cleves:
For

Gathering information from the ISDS Platform FAQ, it seems that the ISDS system was created initially to protect former colonizers’ assets. It also creates a business-friendly judicial system.

OOCly, I do not support colonialism or corruption in business.

ICly, since I am an imperial nation, the colonizers’ assets thing is not hated by the empress, but the business-friendly part definitely ticks her highness off.

Therefore, I have to vote for.
Click to expand...
If you are against corruption by governments (especially foreign governments that default on their debt and without a robust justice system), I urge you to reconsider. This is admittedly not a familiar topic unless one works in international finance, but Deropia's reply above is a very succinct summary.
 
Last edited:
Rewan Demontay:
Against; I don't quite understand the point of this resolution nor why it is a problem.
Click to expand...
I firmly believe there isn't a problem with the current ISDS mechanism. As I said on the main NS forums (which were significantly more sternly worded), I don't think this resolution has been thought through clearly, and could end up being the most staggering example of robbing the poor to support tyranny that I have seen to date in my years in NationStates, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
The Secretariat has ruled this proposal illegal. Accordingly, thread locked. If this proposal is resubmitted and ruled legal or ruled legal later, the thread will be reopened.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top