Harken sues Costa Rica for $57 billion over its environmental laws.

[G_j]

HARKEN V. COSTA RICA
Mark Engler and Nadia Martinez, Grist Magazine,
March 26, 2004

Highlighting one of the flaws in the upcoming CAFTA treaty,
Harken Energy sues the nation of Costa Rica for $57 billion
for enforcing its own environmental laws.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18258

When most people think of Costa Rica, they don't imagine oil rigs stationed off the pristine beaches. Nor do they envision pit mines cutting into the cloud-forested mountains. But, despite the country's noteworthy conservation efforts, its scenic vistas and extraordinary biodiversity face ongoing threats from extractive industries – and from international trade deals.


Nearly two years ago, Costa Rican nationals and admirers thought they'd been given reason to rest easy. In May 2002, responding to a large-scale mobilization of the country's environmentalists, President Abel Pacheco announced a moratorium on oil exploration and open-pit mining in Costa Rica. Legislators are currently working to give congressional backing to the executive order and repeal laws that expose the country to extractive industries.


At least one multinational interest isn't happy about the developments, however, and its model of corporate discontent may soon end the prospects of an activist siesta.


Harken Energy, a Texas-based oil company with close ties to U.S. President George W. Bush, had previously obtained rights to search for crude in Costa Rica. Before failing an environmental impact review in February 2002, it had planned to drill offshore. Now Harken is demanding that the Costa Rican government pay upwards of $12 million in reparations for its aborted exploits.

..more..

[enough]

1. Welcome to Bushworld (nt)

.

[Florida_Geek]

2. this is a very very old story

and is history, check out

http://insidecostarica.com/dailynews/index.htm

for new news.

[G_j]

4. dated March 26, 2004

but thanks for the great link! :-)

this article addresses the problems of CAFTA and NAFTA and uses Harken Vs. Costa Rica as an example.

>Regardless of whether such corporate claims are upheld, the threat of a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit is enough to persuade many developing countries to back down on enforcing their environmental laws. The example of NAFTA shows that even powerful countries are susceptible to what activists dub environmental "blackmail." In one famous 1998 case, the Ethyl Corporation sued Canada over its public health ban on MMT, a fuel additive. Canada chose to overturn its environmental provision and pay $13 million to Ethyl rather than risk $251 million in damages.


With such cases on record, Australia refused to include a provision in its trade agreement with the U.S. that would let investors bypass national courts and take disputes to international bodies. But that's something poorer nations, who feel they cannot afford to risk losing access to U.S. markets, do not have the power to do.

<snip>

[Desertrose]

3. only bush.....

:eyes: UNREAL....

:hi: G_j

Peace
DR

[G_j]

5. actually this type of thing was happening before Bush also

thanks to the WTO, NAFTA, World Bank, IMF and the rest of the alphabet soup. :-(


Hi DR! :hi:

peace, G_j

[Desertrose]

6. maybe we should throw all those letters in a big pot

and make some NEW alphabet soup!
:evilgrin:

:hug:
DR

[G_j]

7. and the letters could spell

peace, love, justice and equality!

:hug:

[Desertrose]

8. oooh I like the way you spell

:evilgrin:

:hug:
DR

[ElsewheresDaughter]

9. poor Costa Rica..i love that country and its grande bolas...fucken Harkies