And Phillip Morris lost the case. You left out that particular part in your example. I wonder why that is? Is it because in this case, as in most such 'examples' of the horrors of ISDS, it turns out that the system did not prevent a nation from acting against a foreign corporate interest?
> And Phillip Morris lost the case. You left out that particular part in your example.
It's not about who lost or won, the problem is that there was a hearing at all. Why would there be a need for dispute settlement between companies and states ? There can be no dispute, the state dictates the law and the companies either comply or leave the country.
ISDS is like giving kids the possibility of suing their parents over their bedtime. It implies the kids have some kind of say in the matter when they really don't.
> There can be no dispute, the state dictates the law and the companies either comply or leave the country.
Why even have free trade agreements if you can create laws that will destroy foreign business? ISDS is not so states can be subject to companies, it for states to follow agreements they sign. If the state values muh sovereignty so much they can simply reneg on the agreement and lose the benefit of free trade.
> Why even have free trade agreements if you can create laws that will destroy foreign business?
if the business in question is only profitable because it pushes negative externalities onto other parties due to lack of regulation (e.g. tobacco companies, anyone on the supply/demand side of unregulated polluting industries) then it sounds like destroying such business models through regulation is a feature, not a bug.
