I'm not going to stop criticizing ISDS, but while it is still here (and that may be for a long time), I'm going to look for ways to use it to promote my political preferences. Here's an example:
“THEY are jealous,” says Terry Branstad, Iowa’s Republican governor, of those who complain that Iowa wields too much influence over national politics, thanks to its hosting of the first presidential caucuses. Every presidential candidate shakes Iowan hands and listens to Iowan concerns. Hillary Clinton came on April 14th, and will be back about ten times before January, predicts Chad Hart at Iowa State University. Mr Branstad plans to use the presidential campaign as an opportunity to promote ethanol. He will urge candidates to support the federal renewable-fuel standard (RFS), which forces oil firms to blend ethanol into vehicle fuel.
The case for a law requiring that corn ethanol be blended into gasoline is pretty weak. My sense is that it actually undermines its main purported objective -- it makes the environment worse, not better. In that regard, one might say that it is "arbitrary," perhaps even "manifestly arbitrary." So, if there are any foreign companies operating in the U.S. who have access to ISDS, how about challenging this law as a violation of the "fair and equitable treatment" obligation?
