Jump to content

Talk:Investor–state dispute settlement: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
NimbusWeb (talk | contribs)
NimbusWeb (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 6: Line 6:
{{wptrade| class=C| importance=high}}
{{wptrade| class=C| importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Law|class=C|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Law|class=C|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Integrity}}
}}
}}



Revision as of 00:35, 11 April 2014

Untitled

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

Article name

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)[reply]

 Done. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article lead

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)[reply]

NPOV

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)[reply]

Mention TTIP !

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)[reply]

Debate Section Full of Unreferenced Proponents Claims

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)[reply]