[GA - Inquorate] ISDS Ban

---

Recognising that many free trade agreements contain investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, which often promise fair and impartial mediation of disputes between member states and corporations - often large and foreign - that invest in them,

Concerned, however, that the main practical effect of ISDS mechanisms is - in any event - to provide a convenient cover for such corporations to effectively gain control over member states' own resources (whether natural or financial) in venues with little accountability, even less transparency, and internal oversight often only by corporate lawyers rather than neutral adjudicators, and

Believing that fundamental sapient rights should not be literally or metaphorically sold to the highest bidder, especially not via ISDS...

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 organised by the World Assembly which is permitted by resolution to hear cases against member states, and
   3. 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 member states to withdraw from all of the FTAs they are party to that contain ISDS mechanisms (although this resolution does not forbid member states from subsequently renegotiating those FTAs as to not contain ISDS mechanisms, or indeed seeking to do so), 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!

---

IFV.

Against

CAUSE GIRLS IS PLAYERS TOO
LADIES GET MONEY ALL AROUND THE WORLD CAUSE GI---I mean here to answer questions.

Against

Against. I fail to see why this treaty mechanism is such a problem as to have to be banned by the WA.

Magecastle:

Against. I fail to see why this treaty mechanism is such a problem as to have to be banned by the WA.

Click to expand...

Agreed. This is not the WA's Business.

Present

Vehemently AGAINST

The originate debate is here:

As mentioned last time, when this came up nearly a year ago before GenSec ruled it illegal, this is the biggest robbery of poor countries and small businesses to benefit rich countries and plutocrats ever drafted on WA.

To summarize my original comments:

Quite frankly this resolution DIRECTLY HURTS the borrowers (such as poorer countries) that this resolution purports to help.

(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 with arbitration.

(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 (South Asia and Africa in particular) indirectly through lower cost of funding, and this resolution seeks to make developing countries significantly poorer by making borrowing more expensive for them.

Or to quote @Deropia who said it in a more succinct form on the gameside forum:

"So, I'll tell you why I can't get behind this. There are some instances where "encouraging legal persons to seek redress through the local court system" is not gonna happen at all. Like in cases where local law either doesn't offer protections, provides for sovereign or crown immunity where even if by some miracle the investor gets a judgement against the Crown it will be largely unenforceable, or worse yet there is a distinct lack of judicial independence in the state where the investment was made and the presiding judge or justice dismisses your case or rules against you because of pressure or instructions from their government. In my honest opinion, a blanket ban might just end up doing more harm than good. If anything, regulation and legislation would do the trick."

Against

Against

Against

Against

Against

Against

Against

(Non-WA) Based on the comments posted by those with greater knowledge of economics and policy than I, I am against this proposal.

Against.

Against, due to Simone and Deropia's comments

Thread locked, as this is inquorate.

To clarify, this made quorum initially but lost quorum in queue.