[ .. one small step (in bold below) to more citizen involvement in was created in a suit arising from the ability of corporations to sue for claimed lost profit as a result of government public health law in California .. as Kevin Zeese .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Zeese , of your video, pointed out the corporations use provisions of 'not freedom related'/'free-trade marketing labeled only' trade agreements ..]
With the establishment of international investment agreements, national environmental laws are increasingly being threatened by these undemocratic procedures. The North American Free Trade Agreement contains provisions that give foreign investors unprecedented power to challenge national laws and to extract compensation from governments when environmental protection measures affect the value of a foreign investment. One of the most problematic aspects of these provisions is that they allow foreign investors to exercise their power over national governments in secret. Investors' challenges to national regulations are decided in confidential arbitration proceedings, meaning the public can have no role in deciding the fate of democratically enacted health and environmental measures.
In a precedent-setting case that has begun to define the role of these investment provisions and tribunals, a Canadian company sued the United States over California's decision to phase out the use of the toxic gasoline additive MTBE, which has been responsible for widespread contamination of groundwater. In this challenge, Methanex Corporation, the Canadian owner of a United States facility that manufactures a component of the additive, brought a one billion dollar NAFTA suit against the United States, demanding compensation for future profits that would be lost because of California's phase-out.
In October 2000, on behalf of environmental organizations that worked to establish the California phase-out of MTBE, Earthjustice sought permission to participate in Methanex's compensation claim under the North American Free Trade Agreement. Although international arbitration tribunals have never before permitted citizens to participate in these confidential processes -- a point Methanex's lawyers highlighted to the tribunal -- Earthjustice succeeded in convincing the tribunal that it had the authority to allow us to make written submissions in the case. We have thus taken a significant step in opening this highly secretive process to public scrutiny and participation.
.. it took some time (obviously weak googling acumen/style) to find Methanex failed in this case with a victory to California and the right to make sovereign laws .. in this case it was in the interest of public health ..
Methanex Corp. v. United States of America
Methanex Corporation, a Canadian marketer and distributor of methanol, submitted a claim to arbitration under the UNCITRAL rules on its own behalf for alleged injuries resulting from a California ban on the use or sale in California of the gasoline additive MTBE. Methanol is an ingredient used to manufacture MTBE.
Methanex contended that a Califiornia [sloppy] Executive Order and the regulations banning MTBE expropriated parts of its investments in the United States in violation of Article 1110, denied it fair and equitable treatment in accordance with international law in violation of Article 1105, and denied it national treatment in violation of Article 1102. Methanex claimed damages of $970 million.
A hearing on jurisdiction and admissibility was held in July 2001. On August 7, 2002, the Tribunal issued a First Partial Award on issues of jurisdiction and admissibility. A hearing on the merits was held in June 2004.
On August 9, 2005, the Tribunal released the Final Award, dismissing all of the claims. The Tribunal also ordered Methanex to pay the United States' legal fees and arbitral expenses in the amount of approximately $ 4 million. The award and other documents appear on this page.
NAFTA .. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA; French: Accord de libre-échange nord-américain, ALÉNA; Spanish: Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte, TLCAN) is an agreement signed by Canada, Mexico, and the United States, creating a trilateral rules-based trade bloc in North America. The agreement came into force on January 1, 1994. It superseded the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement between the U.S. and Canada. In terms of combined purchasing power parity GDP of its members, as of 2007 the trade bloc is the largest in the world and second largest by nominal GDP comparison. .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement
WTO .. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is an organization that intends to supervise and liberalize international trade. The organization officially commenced on 1 January 1995 under the Marrakech Agreement, replacing the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which commenced in 1948. .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization ..
Thousands of Australians could face new criminal penalties for illegally downloading content under the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement.
Just months after more than 100,000 Australians illegally downloaded the latest season of Breaking Bad, the Federal Government is considering an international trade agreement that could criminalise this activity.
Consumer group CHOICE has come out against the provision. “We are deeply concerned at a proposal from the US to expand criminal liability for copyright infringement.
“This would mean that domestic non-commercial infringement could become a criminal act,” says CHOICE CEO Alan Kirkland. “While CHOICE condemns copyright infringement, we certainly don’t agree that an individual downloading Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones for personal use should be open to criminal prosecution.”
CHOICE has also renewed its call for greater transparency on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement after leaked drafts showed that consumer rights could be undermined in the secretive trade agreement. A newly leaked draft, posted on Wikileaks, comes less than one month after CHOICE launched a public campaign for the TPP texts to be made available to the public.
“We have raised several concerns over the risks of poor outcomes for consumers as a result of the TPP negotiations, and those concerns are magnified today,” says Kirkland. “The US appears to be proposing a raft of measures that would be disastrous for Australian consumers if they made the final text. This includes a ban on parallel importation ..
[ A parallel import is a non-counterfeit product imported from another country without the permission of the intellectual property owner. Parallel imports are often referred to as grey product, and are implicated in issues of international trade, and intellectual property .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_import ]
which involves purchasing products from overseas retailers and shipping them to Australia.
“While we are pleased to see that Australian negotiators are opposing this, we continue to have concerns that the TPP could entrench other copyright provisions which contradict recommendations made by the IT Pricing Inquiry.”
“But the leaked draft shows that Australia [is] seeking to lock-in copyright provisions that limit consumers’ ability to get around these virtual walls that sustain higher prices. CHOICE is also disappointed that Australian consumers have to rely on leaked texts to obtain information on the agreement.
“On behalf of our members and consumers more broadly, CHOICE wants to have input into this wide-reaching agreement. Ideally, this would be through open debate. We renew our call on the Australian government to move towards transparency by allowing consumers to see drafts of the TPP,” Kirkland says.
The lack of transparency in the TPP was highlighted last month when a number of journalists were dis-invited from a ‘public’ TPP briefing held by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Sydney. After a backlash, the Department changed its mind, allowing journalists to attend in a ‘private capacity’.
CHOICE has now released its own analysis of what the TPP could mean for consumers. Many provisions appear to go beyond even the draconian measures of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which was dramatically rejected last year by the Australian Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, pending a National Interest Analysis on several of its provisions.
CHOICE also continues to encourage Australians to sign its petition demanding greater transparency in the TPP negotiations.
[ 13234 Signatures so far, good, their 10000 aim has been topped ]
Graeme Philipson is senior associate editor at iTWire and editor of sister publication CommsWire. He is also founder and Research Director of Connection Research, a market research and analysis firm specialising in the convergence of sustainable, digital and environmental technologies. He has been in the high tech industry for more than 30 years, most of that time as a market researcher, analyst and journalist. He was founding editor of MIS magazine, and is a former editor of Computerworld Australia. He was a research director for Gartner Asia Pacific and research manager for the Yankee Group Australia. He was a long time IT columnist in The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, and is a recipient of the Kester Award for lifetime achievement in IT journalism.
Enforcement in the TPP - Australian analysis of the leaked IP chapter
.. i'm assuming, lol, for now 'cuz am not sure, that the concerns outlined below would apply, in some cases if not all, to Americans, also ..
Submitted by Trish on 20 November 2013
Serious concerns about increasing criminalisation of copyright infringement and unbalanced enforcement have been raised by the leaked IP chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement.
The text, dating from August this year, was posted by wikileaks .. http://wikileaks.org/tpp/ , and shows each country’s negotiating position. In an in-depth analysis .. http://works.bepress.com/kimweatherall/27/ .. of the enforcement provisions contained in the leaked chapter, Kimberlee Weatherall, Associate Professor Sydney Law School and ADA Board member, flags several potential concerns for Australia.
Describing the chapter as ‘radically unbalanced’ she explains:
----- There are still far too few safeguards for defendants and third parties in the context of IP litigation…There is a great deal of potential in this text for vastly overreaching claims by IP owners. Even if we trust that, in the end, courts can probably shoot down really excessive claims or demands, there is an increased incentive for litigation, and increased pressure on defendants to settle. -----
Provisions still on the table that would cause particular concern in Australia include ones that could:
----- * Criminalise the activities of small business by making every single infringement with the slightest commercial element into a criminal act (potentially criminalising conduct as common as forwarding an email with third party material);
* Criminalise the acts of private individuals by making any gain of something of value enough to bring in the full force of the criminal law (this potentially makes burning a CD for a friend or downloading one episode of Game of Thrones a criminal offence, not a civil breach as is currently the case);
* Put intermediaries and others under criminal threat through the use of ‘aiding and abetting’ offences for IP infringement. Intermediaries that could be caught by these provisions include universities, schools, businesses and ISPs;
* Allow for disproportionate seizure of goods, with seizure of anything that was used to infringe copyright, such as servers or laptops, even 99% of its use is non-infringing. There is currently with no requirement in the text that the penalty be proportionate to the seriousness of the infringement or the harm caused to IP. -----
Noting that Australia’s position is mainly consistent with our domestic law, but often exceeds our international obligations she warns:
----- Many of the provisions…are untested in the courts, and as such might be things we want to change one day. The position taken here is that Australia should, at the very least, avoid adding to its international obligations, rather than simply seeking not to change Australian domestic law. -----
Australian domestic law also means that some provisions will impact disproportionately on Australia. Lacking a Fair Use exception or a Bill of Rights, we lack some of the balancing safeguards of other countries.
It is disappointing that we should have to rely on wikileaks to shed some light into this secretive process. Previously Australian civil society and business groups who had concerns about the treaty and its potential implications have been kept in the dark, and journalists have been barred from even attending the official briefings. Considering the worrying nature of many of these provisions, we continue to call upon the government to reject copyright proposals that restrict the open internet, access to knowledge, economic opportunity and our fundamental rights .. http://www.ourfairdeal.org/ .
While this leak has given us some insight into the negotiations, it dates from August. We know that negotiations have developed since then, however we don't know what has been added to/taken from or agreed to since that point. We are still also in the dark as to the contents of the other 25 chapters. Therefore we continue to support Choice’s call to release the TPP text .. https://choice.good.do/dont-trade-it-away/release-the-tpp-text/ .. so that ordinary consumers, civil society and business can make a reasoned contribution to the discussion over the agreement's significant impacts.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership and Australia’s right to know
19 November 2013, 6.24am AEST
In the history of trade agreement negotiations, most have been undertaken in secret, justified on the grounds that the governments’ negotiating positions would be weakened if they became public. But this…
Author Pat Ranald Research Associate at University of Sydney
----- Disclosure Statement Dr Patricia Ranald is a Research Associate at the University of Sydney and voluntary Convenor, Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network (AFTINET)
The University of Sydney Provides funding as a Member of The Conversation. sydney.edu.au
Associate Lecturer / Lecturer, Pharmacy Faculty of Pharmacy Campberdown Campus Reference no: 2503/1113 Research and Teaching role in Complementary Medicines Full-time… -----
[ shucks, can't copy image ] Concern over the transparency of TPP negotiations grew after it was revealed negotiating documents could not be released until four years after the completion of the negotiations. Azhar Rahim/AAP
In the history of trade agreement negotiations, most have been undertaken in secret, justified on the grounds that the governments’ negotiating positions would be weakened if they became public.
But this justification is losing credibility as trade agreements increasingly deal with regulatory issues normally determined through public democratic and parliamentary processes.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations involve the US, Australia and ten other Pacific Rim governments - six of which have bilateral trade agreements with the US. There have been 19 rounds of negotiations held over three years in different countries, and there is now pressure to finish by the end of 2013.
The US is driving the agenda, and its objectives are not entirely about trade in goods,but to establish US-style regional regulatory frameworks which meet the demands of its major export industries. These include pharmaceuticals, media, information technology, agribusiness and financial services, all of which are demanding changes to other governments’ domestic regulation. This “architecture for a 21st century trade agreement” is clearly designed to meet US economic and strategic interests, but not those of other countries.
Behind closed doors
The TPP negotiations are dealing behind closed doors with policies which would normally be decided by domestic public and parliamentary debate. Pressure from civil society and perceptions of their own national interest have led other governments to resist key US proposals, as shown in the most recent leaked version of the Intellectual Property Chapter .. https://wikileaks.org/tpp/ .
The agenda includes stronger patents and higher prices for medicines, and reduced rights for governments to regulate medicine prices, food labelling and local content in media. It would also give foreign investors the right to sue governments over health and environmental policies through Investor-state Dispute Settlements .. https://theconversation.com/when-trade-agreements-threaten-sovereignty-australia-beware-18419 .
However community opposition is also based on the lack of transparency within the TPP negotiations.
In Australia, trade agreement texts are only released for public and parliamentary discussion after signed by the Cabinet.There is a review by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties .. http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=jsct/index.htm , but the text cannot be changed. Parliament only debates the legislation required for the implementation of the agreement. Many aspects of the text which would limit the regulatory space for current and future governments, for example ISDS, do not require legislation.
Transparency precedent
Over the last decade the growing opposition to secrecy in trade negotiations has resulted in some examples of greater transparency.
Since 2003, World Trade Organisation proposed texts, offers and background papers have been placed on the WTO public website .. https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S005.aspx . In the case of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which dealt with the extension of intellectual property rights, there was so much controversy that governments agreed to release the text in 2011 .. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/may/tradoc_147937.pdf .. before it was signed. So there are precedents for both the release of negotiating documents and the release of final text before it has been signed by governments.
In the case of the TPP, the controversy over secrecy was fuelled by a leaked 2011 version of the intellectual property chapter .. http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/tpp-10feb2011-us-text-ipr-chapter.pdf .. which revealed on the front page that the negotiating documents could not be released until four years after the completion of the negotiations.
The TPP process has included some consultation - an improvement on previous bilateral negotiations - but it is severely limited by a lack of access to the text. Civil society groups were able to attend and make very short presentations to negotiators during most TPP negotiating rounds, but this practice has now ceased in the final stages. In Australia, negotiators have briefed civil society organisations twice a year, and have also been available for separate meetings on particular topics. But they cannot reveal the detail of what is in the text. Most detailed information has come from leaked documents, industry media and specialised trade media reports.
In the US, trade advisory committees permit 600 corporate advisers and a very small number of other non-government organisations to have more access to the detail of the text .. http://tiny.cc/q6t77w , but they are sworn to secrecy. US Congress members have complained about their lack of access to the text as a reason for opposing the fast-tracking of the TPP through the Congress.
The previous ALP government opposed ISDS and the extension of medicine patents and claimed these policies would not be negotiated away. The Coalition policy is to negotiate on ISDS and other issues, trading democracy and sovereignty for promised increases in market access.
The minimum requirement for a sovereign, democratic public policy process is for the text of the TPP and other trade agreements to be released for public and parliamentary discussion before they are signed.
This is the third piece in our series on the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Ah. A TPP fan outside corporate USA, Tim Groser, New Zealand Trade Minister is little concerned with the situation so far ..
Tim Groser adamant Trans-Pacific Partnership good for NZ
Monday, 23 September 2013, 9:20 am Press Release: TV One
Sunday 22 September, 2013
Trade Minister Tim Groser is adamant that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) will be a good for the country.
“I am absolutely certain that this will be a great deal for New Zealand along the lines we’re negotiating.”
Tim Groser is confident the TPP will have a marginal impact on public institutions like Pharmac.
“It certainly won’t result in higher prices for pharmaceutical products for New Zealanders. This is really about protecting the model of Pharmac to ensure that they’re in a tough negotiating position with international pharmaceutical companies, and we’ve got some very good negotiators who are doing just that.”
Groser says parallel importing will continue as long as it’s consistent with intellectual property law.
“There’s some complicated issues about the interface of this with copyright and that’s a legitimate concern, and our negotiators will work their way through those issues.”
He concedes that this negotiation is the ‘most complicated negotiation’ that he has ever seen.
He denies concerns that Fonterra will have to be broken up.
“Fonterra is not at risk. This is a negotiating tactic used by those people who want to restrict New Zealand’s access into their market because this is something New Zealand’s deeply competitive, but we will work our way through those issues.”
Groser says the TPP will create thousands of jobs for New Zealanders and open up huge opportunities for our export industries.
“The crucial element …is that our principle export items are not excluded from comprehensive liberalisation. That’s the real red line. I think in terms of concerns around Pharmac, we’ve already made it abundantly clear that we will defend those public institutions, and we will ensure that there is policy space for future governments.“
He is defending the need for secrecy around the agreement.
“You have to understand this that if you put out texts into the public with different and conflicting negotiating positions, lobbies who are opposed to change will seize on that text, will try to stop the negotiators showing any compromise. “
He says that we have already lowered the barriers to competitive imports in this country, almost more than any country in this negotiation and haven’t got much to lose.
“Frankly, we haven’t. If we were talking about where we were in the mid-‘80s, my goodness me, I remember when I was involved first in the Treasury and then in Foreign Affairs in the CER negotiations, where we had, you know, massive import licensing, high, high tariffs. “
Tim Groser hopes to have the TPP signed by the end of the year.
Since then Groser has served as New Zealand's Ambassador to the World Trade Organization and as the WTO's chairman of agricultural negotiations. He was heavily involved in the Doha round of discussions.
[...]
Groser made international headlines in late 2012 when his governing National Party said New Zealand would be withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol. The climate minister said the 15-year-old agreement was outdated, and that New Zealand was "ahead of the curve" in looking for a replacement that would include developing nations.
In December 2012, the New Zealand Government announced that it was supporting Groser's bid to become the next Director-General of the World Trade Organisation, a position which will become vacant by the end of May 2013 with the retirement of Pascal Lamy. This bid was eventually unsuccessful. .. more .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Groser
=====
Ok. Hope personal ambition is not compromising his objectivity. Let's peek to see if any others wonder about that. (Nope, haven't looked, yet. It's more fun this way.) Chuckle. Hmm, this bit (about 3" down in the link below) does not directly relate to Groser's position on the TPP, but it does mention others have questioned whether or not personal ambition could be affecting his performance in his present roles. I'm posting more than need be in the hope that others find it as interesting as i did.
Excerpt from New Zealand Hansard Thursday, 21 March 2013 .. there are little, lol, bits in it ..
Ministers—Confidence in Climate Change Issues and Justice Ministers
12. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.
Dr Kennedy Graham: Does he have confidence in the Minister for Climate Change Issues, Tim Groser, to do his climate change job when he is spending so much time and public funds travelling the world promoting his candidacy for a new job as head of the World Trade Organisation (WTO)?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes. The achievements of Mr Groser in that regard speak for themselves.
Grant Robertson: Oh no, he’ll speak about them.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! It would be helpful if the Minister—
Hon David Parker: He’s never lost for words.
Mr SPEAKER: Some interjections are very good. It would be helpful now—
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No, I am not lost for words; I am stunned by one of the best contributions he has ever made to a debate. Can I say that the record of the Hon Tim Groser as Minister speaks for itself. During the years 2000 to 2008 emissions from this country rose by 23 percent. In the last few years they have fallen.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am just checking whether it is appropriate for you as Speaker to say “hear, hear” to Grant Robertson’s interjection like that.
Mr SPEAKER: And I did not do so.
Dr Kennedy Graham: I seek leave to table a document listing the 16 capitals Mr Groser has visited in the past 8 weeks.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a document that lists where Minister Groser has been. Is there any objection? [Interruption] Order! Was there any objection? There appears to be no objection.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Dr Kennedy Graham: Will he direct Mr Groser to find time before the end of his natural term in office to sit down and work out the greenhouse gas emissions reduction target for 2020 and a pathway to it, given that his almost continuous absence is holding up the process?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am quite sure that Mr Groser, who is well-known for his capacity to engage in conversation, will be raising climate change issues with people in each of those 16 countries he visits.
Dr Kennedy Graham: When Mr Groser recently urged trade colleagues in Geneva to “never underestimate the power of ideas”, as part of his WTO candidacy, did he have in mind a vision of a world with a stable climate or a world where he gets the job he wants?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: If the House had the time, I would spend it conveying Mr Groser’s visions on many matters.
Dr Kennedy Graham: Is there a new visionary ministerial portfolio for job hunting given Mr Groser has taken to adding “candidate for the position of World Trade Organization Director-General” as part of his title on his press releases?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The question line today simply confirms that the Greens do not want this country to progress in an economic sense, and see no value in trade liberalisation throughout the world. A party that preaches about—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!
Dr Kennedy Graham: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The point of my questioning was not an opportunity for the Minister to extol trade virtues and our trade interests. It is a question of focusing on climate change issues.
Mr SPEAKER: Can I ask the member to at some stage over the next 24 hours have a look at his question, which talked about Mr Groser talking to trade Ministers. It was a pretty political question. It certainly was not a tight question. It gave every opportunity for the Minister to respond as he did.
Te Ururoa Flavell: Tena koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou. Does he have confidence in the Minister of Justice in appointing Dame Susan Devoy as Race Relations Commissioner, who has already courted controversy with her views that burkas are “disconcerting” and that Waitangi Day should be replaced with a new national holiday?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes. I have confidence in the Minister who was responsible for appointing a strong independent person to this important office. I think it is appropriate that whoever has that office does engage in a dialogue with New Zealanders about matters they are concerned about.
No prizes for guessing which side of the political spectrum spectrum the present New Zealand government is. Center-right according to .. New Zealand National Party .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_National_Party
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
