The cool reasoning of the Canadian Supreme Court does not acknowledge or reference “external” pressures or the Eli Lilly v. Canada ISDS case. However, courts do not decide cases in a vacuum. This case seems to have been decided in a pressure cooker.
100 small businesses: NAFTA currently privileges multinational corporations over U.S. small business unfairly under “Investor-State Dispute Settlement” preferential treatment.
Regardless of the short-term outcome, the movement for a progressive new NAFTA will hand progressives a dynamic issue—and a mobilized base—in the 2018 and 2020 elections. The current renegotiation could set the stage for future battles, perhaps for deeper change.
The Ontario government says it has paid a $28-million award that a NAFTA tribunal ruled was owed to a wind power company over a provincial offshore wind moratorium.
Un tema que no ha sido analizado a profundidad son las nuevas disposiciones que serán agregadas al texto del tratado en materia de medio ambiente, laboral, sindical, propiedad intelectual, entre otros.
The Tribunal found that Eli Lilly had failed to demonstrate that the promise doctrine constitutes a fundamental or dramatic change in the utility requirement under Canadian patent law or that the promise doctrine is arbitrary and/or discriminatory.
Just the fact that the Canadian government had to go through this massive and expensive process for many years just for rejecting two bad patents should show why ISDS provisions are such a problem.
Canada has prevailed over pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly in a long-running investor-state dispute the drug company filed under NAFTA’s investment chapter.