By examining cases where agreements have been referred arbitration courts under the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) method, the York University (Toronto, Canada) study found a strong relationship between the size of a company and the judgements.
Our main findings are that the beneficiaries of ISDS-ordered financial transfers, in the aggregate, have overwhelmingly been companies with more than USD1 billion in annual revenue – especially extra-large companies with more than USD10 billion – and individuals who have over USD100 million in net wealth. ISDS has produced monetary benefits primarily for those companies or individuals at the expense of respondent states.Such agreements have apparently already been made by governments on a bi-lateral or small multi-lateral basis to protect investors from so-called "arbitrary" laws passed in the future by the participating foreign governments. I write "apparently" because Dearden does not make this clear. What is needed is much more explanation of how such courts have already been set up, who appointed the judges, and associated issues such as "forum-shopping" cited in the study so that ordinary educated people can understand this issue.
For example, from Wikipedia (under "Foreign investment protection/Modern practice) I learned that under this ISDS arrangement that governments cannot win any money if they win the case--they can only lose money if they lose the case in these unique arbitration courts.
...only foreign investors can sue states under investment treaties, because states are the parties to the treaty, and only states can be held liable to pay damages for breach of the treaty. States have no corresponding right to bring an original claim against a foreign investor under such treaties, again because investors are not parties to the treaty and therefore cannot be in breach of it. Thus, a decision in favour of the State means that the state has not been ordered to pay compensation, not that it has received any compensation from the investor, although costs can be awarded against the investor. A state cannot "win" in ISDS in the manner of a foreign investor - a state which wishes to sue a foreign investor does so through its own domestic courts, without the need for a treaty. [my emphasis]What is clear to me is that such treaties have been designed to protect capitalists from governments who want to enact laws and regulations on behalf of the public interest. ISDS is simply designed to prevent governments infringing on the rights of capitalists to reap profits from operations that may be damaging to the environment, exploiting workers, and otherwise not in a nation's interest. It is obvious that this arrangement has been created by capitalist controlled "democratic" governments for the interests of capitalists. Like all the other features of these fake democratic states, capitalist interests always take priority. Also what is clear from this Canadian study is that the richer an investor or corporation is, the more money he can make through these "arbitration" courts. But that's the way capitalism always works.
