Is it realistic to believe that environmental, labor and human right provisions in the tpp can

[cali]

be enforced?

The record of their being enforced, under existing ftas, is lousy. It will take an army of investigators to substantiate allegations of malfeasance. where do they come from? Who pays for them? How do we prevent the inevitable corruption? Wouldn't extensive training be needed?

As for enforcement itself, say wrongdoing is claimed against a corporation by a nation, could the corporation appeal under the ISDS?
What if a nation is in collusion with a corporation? And a hundred more questions.

[Romeo.lima333]

1. well it;s not a problem cause corporations rarely get what they want anyway especially when it's

only people in the way and money is at stake. so see folks nothing to worry about

[cali]

3. that's a flip throwaway comment that unfortunately

encapsulates a lot of truth

[Romeo.lima333]

18. idk how to add the sarcasm tag

[aspirant]

2. And we and our reps

are supposed to vote on this with union organizers being murdered around the world.

[cali]

5. And human rights workers

The history is anything but encouraging, and the "this time it will be different 'coz Obama" is a terrible rationale.

[el_bryanto]

4. They can be, but i doubt they will be

If the TPP and other trade agreements were actually enforced in these areas they might have some positive good along with the destruction - but like you say, they generally aren't.

Bryant

[cali]

6. how? don't those seem like overwhelming obstacles?

[el_bryanto]

7. Well the laws and provisions could be enforced; it's possible to do so

But the political will to see that it happens isn't there. Or won't be when push comes to shove (It's entirely possible that Obama and his team genuinely believe that those provisions will be enforced). But there have been seemingly intractable problems with corporations that have been handled before - the creation of the EPA for example.

Right now it seems like corporations have veto power over government action, but that state of affairs need not continue.

I'm generally optimistic though.

Bryant

[mmonk]

8. You mean a first ever? Doubtful.

[Brickbat]

9. Like the ones in current trade agreements?

If you mean "not so much," then sure.

[aspirant]

10. Why should trade trump

human rights and murder.

Any country whose standards are just deplorable must raise them to have the privilege of entering into a trade agreement. Do you think these countries will enforce standards?

Will the enforcement mechanisms be paid for by the multinationals (mercenaries) or the American taxpayers?

American enforcers maybe the only jobs created by the TPP

[cali]

12. theoretically, member nations could fund an investigative arm

But as I understand it, compliance is left to corporations and each nation, much of it voluntary

[malthaussen]

11. Is it realistic to believe that they want to enforce them? n/t

[cali]

13. no, not based on what is happening today and recent history

[MineralMan]

14. Well, if they don't exist, there's nothing to be enforced.

Inclusion of such provisions is a step in the right direction. Enforcement is a matter for the individual nations, though. Such provisions are included as an ideal to be worked toward, and can be enforced, but leaving them out doesn't help. I'm not sure what your reason for bringing this up might be. If those provisions are included, that's a good thing, as I see it. That a rule or law might not be enforced is not an argument against including such rules or laws in a policy. Enforcement is something entirely different. If the provisions exist, they can be enforced. If they do not exist, no enforcement is possible.

[cali]

16. who has said they don't exist?

And no one has said they shouldn't be included. Strawman nonsense.

What has ben said, is that in the leaked environmental draft chapter compliance was almost entirely voluntary- and that was a late draft, the result of 17 rounds of negotiations. In the recently released investment draft chapter, enforcement provisions were strong. As for enforcement by individual governments, I take it you're unaware of the Columbian government's alleged collusion in the murders of scores of labor rights activist. Perhaps you are also unaware of the long history of collusion and corruption between governments and corporations.

Please try to argue without relying on strawmen.

[pampango]

15. It comes down to how high the standards are and how good the enforcement mechanism is.

If standards in the environmental, labor and human right provisions are low and enforcement is strong and effective that is a bad thing. Countries with high standards currently will be dragged down. National sovereignty will not protect them.
If standards in the environmental, labor and human right provisions are high and enforcement is strong and effective that is a good thing. Countries with low standards currently will be dragged up. National sovereignty will not protect them.
If standards in the environmental, labor and human right provisions are low and enforcement is weak and ineffective that is a bad thing. We will get more of what we already have but national sovereignty will protect countries regardless of their standards, high or low. Low standards and weak enforcement are what we have now.
If standards in the environmental, labor and human right provisions are high and enforcement is weak and ineffective that is a bad thing, too though it may look better on paper. We will get more of what we already have. National sovereignty will protect the countries that meet the high standards and allow those with weak standards to keep doing the same.

A weak enforcement mechanism will make for a lousy agreement as it has in past agreements. It would be a victory for national sovereignty but not for global standards in the environmental, labor and human rights.

If enforcement is strong it will have to violate national sovereignty and force national governments to do what they would not do otherwise. Whether that is a good or bad thing will depend (unless on values national sovereignty above all else) on the level of the standards being enforced.

Obama claims that the environmental and labor provisions will have the same enforcement mechanism as the investment protection provisions. If that's true (and the labor and environmental standards are high) TPP is different. If it is not, reservations that apply to previous agreements should rightly be applied to the TPP.

[cali]

17. great post, though having read professor Lynn's recent analysis

on national sovereignty issues in the tpa pertaining to the TPP, I am not encouraged regarding corporations.