🔗 Share this article

What is your perceive our political system works? Perhaps along the lines of this. Citizens choose MPs. They vote on bills. If a majority is obtained, the bills are enacted as law. Statutes is maintained by the courts. That's it. However, that was how it used to work. No longer.

The Advent of Offshore Tribunals

Nowadays, international firms, along with the billionaires that control them, are able to litigate against elected administrations for the laws they pass, at private courts staffed by business advocates. Such disputes are conducted away from public scrutiny. In contrast to domestic courts, these panels allow no avenue for appeal or judicial review. You or I are unable to file a case to them, just as our government, or even enterprises operating from this country. Access is granted only to corporations based overseas.

If a tribunal determines that a law or policy may compromise the corporation’s projected profits, it may order compensation of hundreds of millions, running into billions.

These awards constitute not actual losses but compensation the panel members determine the company would perhaps have made. The state could be forced to abandon its policy. It is hesitant to passing future laws along the same lines, due to the risk of being sued.

A Mechanism Running Rampant

Unprecedented levels of disputes are being initiated, as corporations learn from each other, and investment funds bankroll lawsuits in exchange for a cut of the awards. The outcome? Sovereignty and democratic governance are becoming prohibitively expensive.

The system is referred to as “investor-state dispute settlement” (ISDS). The reason it can trump domestic law and the choices made by elected bodies is that this clause has been written – without public consent, and typically amid a climate of total confidentiality – within bilateral investment treaties.

A Real-World Example: The Cumbrian Coalmine

Last year, a conservation group won a great victory at the senior court. The justice determined that proposals to excavate the first deep coalmine in the UK for three decades, in northwest England, were wrongly permitted by the Conservative government, which had accepted the questionable argument that the mine could have no consequence on national carbon targets. The new government then withdrew the licence the previous administration had issued. Now, this success is under threat by an secret arbitration panel accountable to exclusively the companies filing the suit.

In August, a corporate entity whose final controllers reside in the Cayman Islands filed a lawsuit versus the UK government. Last week a arbitration panel in Washington DC was established to adjudicate on it.

The company is seeking compensation from the UK for the revenue it might have made if the mine had been permitted to commence operations. The public has no idea how much this could amount to. What legal team is representing it challenging the British government? An elected representative, and former attorney-general in the previous government, that great patriot Sir Geoffrey Cox. The government makes a decision, the national judiciary supports it, then a international entity challenges it through an unaccountable private court, and a elected official works for its behalf.

The Russian Challenge

On the same day that the tribunal on the mining lawsuit was appointed, it was revealed from a parliamentary answer that the UK faces another lawsuit under ISDS by a Russian oligarch, an oligarch. We know scarce of the case so far, but it appears probable that he may employ the arbitration process to contest the restrictions the UK levied against him following the Russian aggression. He has already started suing a small nation for this reason, seeking $16bn: half that state's yearly budget. Included in the legal team acting for him in that case? a prominent lawyer, wife of the ex-UK leader.

Trade specialists contend that the EU’s delay in using frozen state funds as guarantee for its aid for Ukraine stems from Belgium’s fear that it could be taken to court in the offshore corporate courts, under a trade agreement. This unprecedented, undemocratic power over democratic administrations may be obstructing the funds Ukraine desperately needs.

Misleading Claims and Growing Risks

The public was told that these scenarios wouldn’t happen. Previously, a government leader, championing the biggest and most dangerous of all investment pacts, stated: “Britain has agreed to trade agreement after trade deal and there has not been a case in the past.” An adviser on this matter described activists of “exaggeration … in reality, ISDS barely touches the UK much”. The overall message appeared to be that solely developing countries needed to fear such legal actions. Cautionary notes that “when companies start to realise the power bestowed upon them, they will redirect their efforts from the weak nations to the strong ones” were met with scepticism.

That threat has come to pass. In the current period, oil and gas and resource corporations have filed a historic level of claims against nations across the economic spectrum, contesting – as in the case of the Whitehaven project – official measures to prevent environmental catastrophe. Corporations have to date won vast sums by using ISDS, of which fossil fuel companies have secured eighty-four billion dollars. That is equivalent to the combined GDP