Todd Tucker picks apart Hillary Clinton's recent statements on ISDS ("With respect to the flawed ISDS provisions in TPP – which I even wrote about in my book – I think we need to have a new paradigm for trade agreements that doesn’t give special rights to corporations that workers and NGOs don’t get"), and then says this:
... unless Sanders can pull off double digit margins of victory there and in remaining states like California, Clinton is on track to win the Democratic nomination.
If she does, might we see investor-state dispute settlement morph into everybody-state dispute settlement? In other words, will human rights groups and non-investing individuals get new transnational legal forums to advance their interests? This could turn ISDS into something more resembling a cross-regional European Court of Human Rights, which allows suits by investors and non-investors over violations of property rights and broader human rights. There would be a lot of specifics to iron out, including what rights of non-investors get protected, and how exactly they can go about launching cases.
My guess is that broadening international law in this way would not play very well in the U.S. (or anywhere else) right now (or in the foreseeable future), and she doesn't have this in mind. Rather, she was trying for vague and mushy language that could allow for minor tweaks which could justify supporting a "reformed" TPP some time in the future.
