In January 2008, the United States began discussions with Pacific 4 (P4) members on trade liberalization in the financial services sector. [59] This resulted in 19 rounds of formal negotiations and a series of other meetings, such as. B the meetings of the chief negotiators and ministerial meetings, which culminated in the agreement announced on October 5, 2015. The TPP agreement establishes an Investor-State Dispute Settlement Mechanism (ISDR) [128] that gives investors the right to sue foreign governments for infringement. For example, if an investor invests in country “A,” a member of a trade agreement, and in country A to violate that contract, the investor can sue country government A for infringement. [129] ISDS aims to protect foreign investors from foreign government actions such as “freedom of discrimination,” “protection against uncompensated expropriation of property,” “protection against denial of justice” and “right to transfer capital”: [130][131] In January 2016, the National Manufacturers` Association announced its support for the TPP and stated: “Without such an agreement , the United States would cede economic leadership to other world powers. to set the rules for economic engagement in the region.” [182] As part of the agreement, tariffs on U.S. industrial products and virtually all products of the U.S. MARKET economy were eliminated almost immediately. However, some “sensitive” products would have been excluded until a date agreed at a later date. In 2014, linguist and political activist Noam Chomsky warned that the TPP “was designed to advance the neoliberal project of maximizing profit and supremacy and putting the world`s workers in competition with each other to reduce wages, to increase uncertainty.” [212] Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) argues that trade agreements such as the TPP “have destroyed families who end up working and enriched big business.” [213] Professor Robert Reich asserts that the TPP is a “Trojan horse in a global race to the bottom.” [214] [215] [216] The Office of the United States Trade Representative challenges the idea that ISDS “challenges the sovereign capacity of governments to impose any measures they wish to protect workers` rights, the environment or other matters of public interest.” [131] The International Bar Association (IBA) echoes this view and notes that “while investment contracts restrict the ability of states to impose arbitrary or discriminatory treatment, they do not restrict (and, in fact, expressly protect) a state`s sovereign right to regulate in the public interest in a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory manner.” [132] The White House notes that investment protection is an integral part of more than 3,000 trade agreements, the vast majority of which have some form of neutral arbitration.

[143] The United States participates in at least 50 such agreements, has experienced only 13 isDS cases and has never lost a case of ISDS. [143] The White House asserts that the components of the TPP ISDR are an improvement and improvement over ISDS in other trade agreements: the TPP makes it clear that governments can regulate in the public interest (including health, safety and the environment); The TPP provides for the ability to promptly dismiss reckless claims and to grant rights against the applicant in order to discourage such actions; Fictitious companies are prevented from accessing investment protection measures; and arbitration procedures under the TPP are publicly available and allow non-parties to lodge appeals. [143] Fredrik Erixon and Matthias Bauer of the European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE) write that Tufts` analysis was so flawed “that their results should not be considered reliable or realistic.” [20] You write that the tufts model “is, on the whole, a demand-driven model, which makes no effort to measure the effects of trade on supply, which are the effects that turn out to be the main positive effects of trade liberalization