This is about ISDS cases in EU, but gives a good idea of the mechanism and problems:
https://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/publications/hidden_cost_of_eu_trade_deals_0.pdf
FWIW, I can confirm it wasn't edited; I have my original file with the post open in front of me...
FWIW, I can confirm it wasn't edited; I have my original file with the post open in front of me...
Good question; presumably because ordinary laws that we lesser mortals have to follow don't apply to supranational ISDS suits - which is part of the problem.
My understanding is that if a nation refuses to pay, the plaintiff is able to apply to courts in other countries that recognise the ISDS court's decision to seize assets of the government that loses. Here's an interesting story on this issue involving Russia:
https://www.euractiv.com/section/europe-s-east/news/russia-prepares-to-seize-western-assets/
Thanks, corrected; no idea why I put that date...
I've just checked - works fine here, so maybe a local problem. Have you tried using a VPN to access it?
It does: thanks for sorting that out.
My understanding is that this modelling takes no account of possible ISDS awards. So you're right: it is quite possible that the net effect of TPP will be negative for Canada - and many other countries.
See my reply to a similar comment earlier.
Well, speaking as the author of that piece, I'd like to point out that the new rules on photos of objects applies to objects still in copyright. Once they are in the public domain, then photos of them will be in the public domain, as this BestNetTech piece says.
The bad news is that instead of waiting 25 years after they were first sold, UK citizens now have to wait life plus 70 years after the death of the designer, before that happens.
No, not the editor's fault, mine (no excuses). Corrected now; thanks.
Re:
Seems to be framed as a purely copyright thing (http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=pm&Datum=2017&Sort=3&nr=78497&pos=0&anz=87):
"Die Klägerin sieht darin eine Verletzung ihrer Urheberrechte an den UdP."
"views it as an infringement of copyright"
But presumably that's also a convenient way to attack a whistleblowing site, as you suggest.