Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
It should be possible for any member of parliament, as well as any list eligible to run for parliament, at the time of a potentially enforceable promise made to an investor or group of investors, to dissent, publicly, in writing.

The ISDS system should not have jurisdiction over decisions made by governments or parliaments which do not contain any persons or members of parties who were eligible to sign a dissent but failed to do so.

This will ensure that a transparent process exists for gaging the general sentiment of a polity, permitting investors to take an educated stance on the potential political risk associated with his investment. That should be sufficient to protect investors from arbitrary, mendacious or capricious government intervention, without infringing on the fundamental right of popular self-determination.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jul 4th, 2014 at 02:08:01 PM EST
In addition, one could distinguish between a government nullifying a commitment by way of nationalisation, a government backing out from a commitment of a previous one so that it can give the contract to another company, and a government backing out from a commitment without an alternative investor because it sees the project as harmful to the public interest.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sun Jul 6th, 2014 at 03:48:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series