Talk:Investor–state dispute settlement/Archives/2016

Examples section is rather poor

The examples section consists of almost only cases that were denied; I find it much more relevant to include cases where the government has lost, so that we can know how ISDS works in reality. I included the case of Ethyl Corporation versus Canada, and I'm looking for good sources for the case of SD Myers versus Canada. If nobody objects, I will also remove the cases where the litigation went nowhere. Mateus Araújo (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd hardly consider cases dismissed cases going nowhere. Instead, I'd consider them examples of cases which resulted in a loss for the plaintiff. Dschslava (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but this means nothing happened, nothing changed. The point of the examples section is to illustrate how is this power to sue governments used. Surely the cases where the arbitration court made the government do something illustrate better what this power entails. Remember that the situation is not symmetric, this mechanism is not meant for governments to sue corporations. Mateus Araújo (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but it should also illustrate how the process is not completely innocent of bad faith—the suits found to be inapplicable to the law should also be included, because they illustrate how this whole process can be used to pummel a government until it gives in. That being said, I think that we can remove the case 'Centurion Health Corporation v. Canada' because it is very obviously inapplicable to the process. Dschslava (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point. It is likely that a government would change its behaviour merely to avoid being sued, even if it would likely win the lawsuit. I'll look for an example of that. But maybe it is useful to separate the cases where the plaintiffs won and lost, as they still have different meanings. I'll do that and delete 'Centurion Health Corporation v. Canada'. Mateus Araújo (talk) 10:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I see that you've gone ahead and separated them, which I agree with wholeheartedly. I also suppose that cases where the parties settled outside of court would fall under the auspices of what you mentioned in your second sentence above. Dschslava (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC) Removing Centurion Health Corporation v. Canada' is a rush to judgement and does not conform with transparency unless you are privy to additional court filings which have yet to be ruled on in this case it is just speculation. To make a judgement of inapplicable is inaccurate and can be well argued. There is a lot more to this case then meets the eye and will remain relevant for many years to come.

Notable information on ISDS

BBC Radio 4 did a background story on ISDS: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05ntj7p --212.101.32.185 (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Editor repeatedly restores biased content, unsourced content and poor descriptions

Problems with these edits[1]:

• Deleting the description of ISDS from the accurate and uncontroversial "an instrument of public international law that grants an investor the right to use dispute settlement proceedings against a country's government" to "a system through which individual companies can sue countries for alleged discriminatory practices" is not an improvement.
• ISDS did not become "widely known" through Philip Morris v. Uruguay. It's undue weight to throw that into the lede as the second sentence.
• Adding "widely criticized" before TTIP and CETA is weasel words
• This unsourced criticism does not belong in the lede: "ISDS has been criticized because the United States has never lost any of its ISDS cases, and that the system is biased to favor American companies and American trade over other Western countries, and Western countries over the rest of the world." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

1. The first sentence is not readable to the general public, see WP:NOTJOURNAL
2. The Philip Morris lawsuits are the most well-known cases of ISDS, and if you follow the literature they are oft-cited, and there are sources to back that up (including a number in the article).
3. Not really, seeing as WP:RS claim they are widely criticized. It may be better to explain them as being "controversial", but this is not a case of WEASEL.
4. That statement has several sources, which makes the argument void.

I realized it was currently missing sources, (must have forgot to press the insert button), but now there are a couple.

Distrait cognizance (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that Philip Morris v. Uruguay is a well-known case of ISDS. What I'm disputing is (i) that ISDS became "widely known" through the case; and (ii) that it belongs in the lede. Second, we don't add "widely criticized" to everything that has been criticized. We might as well add "widely supported" given that those agreements have majority support in surveys of the public. Either would be ridiculous. Again, that last point does not belong in the lede. If it can be supported with RS, it belongs in the main body. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

You just added two sources to support that last claim: one comes from a crackpot conspiracy website (GlobalResearch.ca) and the other comes from the "International Journal of Socialist Renewal". Were these the reliable sources that were meant to back up your claim? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Those types of links would be more welcome at Wikispooks than here I suppose, but I do find it weird that the page didn't have a link to the article that links through the Guardian article you've inadvertently deleted Snoogs:

References

SashiRolls (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)