Talk:Investor-state dispute settlement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject International relations / United Nations (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Economics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Trade (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trade on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Law (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Integrity
WikiProject icon This article is part of Wikiproject Integrity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Wikipedia having edits by contributors with a monetary obligation to edit the article topic. To participate, you can edit the attached article or contribute further at WikiProject Integrity.
 

Untitled[edit]

Starting article on Investor-state provisionsNimbusWeb (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Article name[edit]

Seems to me that a more accurate and WP:MOS title for this article would be Investor-state dispute settlement, with a hyphen and only the first word capitalized. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Article lead[edit]

Good to see this article being further developed. One thing that needs attention, in my opinion, is the article lead, which should be expanded to more provide a broader overview of the topic and summary of the scope of the article. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

IMHO the arguments against ISDS are not properly balanced by arguments in favor of them. Investors may feel a justified need to act against rogue states not respecting their rights.

The argument that ISDS decisions may override democratic decisions is nothing special. Constitutional courts correct democratic decisions all the time. Remember that Hitler came to power by a democratic decision - but unfortunately no opportunity existed at the time to challenge his decisions in court! Private parties may invoke courts to challenge government decisions, that is normal nowadays.

It occurs to me that the prime problem is the opacity of the procedure and the lack of a procedure to challenge the independence of the panels. That is badly needed since the legal issues in these conflict are complicated.

If a firm must close overnight due to a law that was adopted unexpectedly by the government, some compensation seems justified. But firms producing controversial products (from nuclear power plants to cigarettes) could be prepared for changes in legislation. Firms recruiting women in Eastern Europe to work in the see industry even more so. Rbakels (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hitler as an argument pro ISDS. Seriously?! 194.232.72.121 (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Mention TTIP ![edit]

I looked into this article, searched for "transatlan" and "TTIP" in vein, therefore considered that article as whatsoever low quality and gone again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.200.171.174 (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC) It urgently needs a profund list of all free trade agreements containing isds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.200.171.174 (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Debate Section Full of Unreferenced Proponents Claims[edit]

Wonder how anyone got away with stuffing so many unreferenced proponents claims in the debate section.This article could be a good case study for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Integrity/Editor Registry NimbusWeb (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Debate section exhibits bias[edit]

I suggest that the case for and against ISDS has been presented from a point of view biased in favour. Opponents' case is presented first in summary form, followed by a lengthy refutation, in each of the two main paragraphs. Anyone reading this impartially would conclude that the intention is to present a watertight demolition of the opponents' case, which is in fact far stronger than this account makes it appear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidJMidgley (talkcontribs) 13:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)