Courts are not answerable to a democratically elected body.
If a court finds my guilt or innocent, the legislature can't overrule them.
I don't have a problem with that - IF, that is, the court is setup in an open and transparent way, with avenues for appeal, etc., such that we can reasonably expect to get justice out of the system.
As often as humanly possible, anyway.
Corporations, like Soylent Green, are made of people. [Old Charlton Heston joke...nevermind]. My wife and I own and run a corporation. It employs 11 people.
Corporations are just groups of people who get together to do things that are too big for one person to do. I don't see any reason that people in groups shouldn't have the same rights that people have one-by-one.
One of the purposes of law is to make life more predictable.
So people can know what will and won't be punished.
If (hypotheically) raising the minimum wage benefits the public more than than it costs employers (in the case of ISDS, only *foreign* employers), then there should be no problem paying the damages - the public is ahead of the game after paying them, and the employers are no worse off than before.
Same for nuclear power - if the benefit to the public exceeds the losses to private parties then the public is ahead even after paying compensation.
To me it's simple fairness - particular private parties should be compensated when they suffer losses for the benefit of the public as a whole.
In my view it ought to apply to everyone (not just foreign investors), but reducing injustice a little at a time is still progress.
My understanding is that ISDS is meant to compensate foreign investors if they invest based on existing law, then the government arbitrarily changes the rules afterwards, harming them.
If my understanding is correct, and if it's done in an open and transparent way (some commenters say it's not, and if so that's worrying), then I do support it.
It's effectively another limitation on the arbitrary powers of government. Which I think we have too few of.
If you think the idea of the Bill of Rights is a good one, then you agree with me that at least some restrictions on what governments are allowed to do - even with majority support - are good.
My view is we need more restrictions on the arbitrary power of governments.
ISDS doesn't even say governments can't do what they want - it just says if they do, they have to compensate (some of) the losers.
Every government action has winners and losers. If the gains of the winners are bigger than the losses of the losers, it's a good thing to do. That doesn't mean that the losers should pay for the gains of the winners - losers should be compensated.
If the compensation is too much, then that's a sign that the gains of the winners are not large enough to pay the losses - so it's bad policy and shouldn't be implemented.
Democracy is part of a larger system that includes inviolate rights (rights that can't be overridden by a majority), limits on the power of governments, and mechanisms (like representative government) meant to cool passions and allow time for reason and debate.