Investor States (NAFTA, CAFTA, sovereignity and the environment)

[phantom power]

These were part of a discussion on Hullaballoo, here. Note the intersection with water rights.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/investor-states-by-digby-david-sirota.html

MONTPELIER, Vt. --A Canadian company wants to open a new plant in Claremont, N.H., to bottle fresh water from a source in Stockbridge, Vt.

But if Vermont wants to limit how much water the company takes, it may run afoul of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

States around the country are growing increasingly worried about the threats posed to their laws and regulations by the secret tribunals that resolve disputes in international trade. Experts say everything from environmental rules to the licensing of nurses and other professionals could be affected.

"Free trade agreements are to state sovereignty and economic development what global climate change is to the environment and natural resources," said state Sen. Virginia Lyons, D-Chittenden. "I think it's a really significant issue for our state, and for every state in the country."

http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/ap_nafta_trade_tribunals_seen_trumping_state_laws

If an investor prevails in its NAFTA claim, the losing nation is obliged to compensate the firm from the national treasury. Among the 42 cases detailed in the report:

* Aspects of the U.S. state tobacco settlements of the late 1990s, which have resulted in a dramatic drop in the rate of teen smoking in the United States, have been challenged as arbitrary and unfair by Canadian tobacco traders.

* A California regulation requiring the backfilling of open-pit mines has been challenged by a Canadian mining enterprise, which plans to develop a giant open-pit cyanide gold mine in Imperial Valley, Calif., and which owns and operates similar mines around the world.

* UPS is seeking $160 million in compensation from Canada, claiming that its government-run parcel delivery system undermines UPS’ market share.

* Bans or phase-outs of toxic substances have been challenged three times. A challenge to Canada’s phase-out of certain uses of the pesticide lindane has been initiated by a U.S. company. Canada’s proposed ban on the gasoline additive MMT was challenged, but before the case was finalized Canada reversed the policy and paid $13 million to an American firm; California’s ban on the gasoline additive MTBE has been challenged by a Canadian firm, and that multimillion-dollar case is still pending.

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1883