The Most Complex International Borders in the World
18 Aug 2015 Leave a comment
in International law Tags: economics of borders, maps
Canada & The United States: Bizarre Borders
16 Aug 2015 Leave a comment
in International law, law and economics Tags: borders, economics of borders, maps
Explanation of the Greece Bailout in 90 Seconds
13 Aug 2015 Leave a comment
in budget deficits, business cycles, currency unions, economic growth, fiscal policy, international economic law, international economics, International law, macroeconomics Tags: credible commitments, Eurosclerosis, game theory, Greece, sovereign bailouts, sovereign defaults
Are Hong Kong & Macau Countries?
11 Aug 2015 Leave a comment
in International law Tags: geography, Hong Kong, Macau
Passports in Europe were abolished between 1861-1914
11 Aug 2015 Leave a comment
in international economic law, international economics, International law Tags: passports
@BrankoMilan Passports in Europe were abolished between 1861-1914 "History of Passports" bit.ly/1N5QSRo http://t.co/P97W2FCKJS—
Old Whig (@aClassicLiberal) August 04, 2015
TPP – Trojan Horse in a global race to the bottom
03 Aug 2015 Leave a comment
in international economics, International law, law and economics, politics - Australia, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA, property rights, Public Choice Tags: free trade agreements, ISDS, regional trade agreements, TPPA
I can’t think of a single fact that this crank got right in this clip on the Trans-Pacific partnership agreement (TPPA).
Robert Reich, a Democratic party hack, referred to the TPPA as the biggest trade deal ever. He ignored a large number of multinational trade deals under the World Trade Organisation and the GATT such as the Uruguay round and the current Doha round.
http://www.cuts-international.org/brf-97-1.gif
Reich claims the deal is negotiated in secret and later talks about its submission to the Congress for fast track.
Robert Reich claims that investor state dispute settlement allows challenges to any regulation and compensation for unfair reductions in profits. It is a far narrow criteria than that involving discrimination against foreigners.
http://images.slideplayer.com/5/1585527/slides/slide_6.jpg
Currently, about 3000 international treaties give the ability to sue governments. Some 2700 of these are Bilateral Investment Treaties. The rest are trade treaties, including NAFTA. These treaties have spread rapidly around the world since the 1990s.
The TPP draft chapter says that the point of investment protection has long been “to encourage and promote the flow of investment…as a means to promote economic growth.”
At the same time, the TPP draft chapter specifically highlights “the inherent right to regulate…to protect legitimate public welfare objectives, such as public health, safety, the environment, the conservation of living or non-living exhaustible natural resources, and public morals.”
Robert Reich talks about the Trans Pacific Partnership and its implications especially if it is signed. It would be the largest trade deal in history representing 792 million people and accounting for 40% of the world economy. Well worth a look.
Jane Kelsey opposes handcuffs on the democratic choices of future governments! Does she oppose labour and environmental standards in trade agreements too?
30 Jul 2015 6 Comments
in applied price theory, applied welfare economics, comparative institutional analysis, constitutional political economy, economics of regulation, environmental economics, health economics, industrial organisation, international economic law, international economics, International law, law and economics, property rights, Public Choice Tags: climate treaties, copyrights, customs unions, environmental standards, free trade agreements, free trade zones, intellectual property law, ISDS, Jane Kelsey, Labour standards, Left-wing hypocrisy, neocolonialism, patents, preferential trading agreeents, regional trade agreements, regulatory harmonisation, TPA, TPPA, WTO
Jane Kelsey in a television interview said she opposes the reductions in sovereignty in trade agreements that result from investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions because they limit the democratic choices of future governments.
If so, she must oppose environmental and labour standards in trade agreements and, more importantly, binding the hands of future governments with climate treaties. All international treaties are about restrictions on sovereignty.
Environmental and labour clauses in trade agreements and climate treaties all limit the powers of governments to legislate on environmental and employment law in accordance with the will of the people as expressed in the most recent election and change of government. Power to the people.
https://twitter.com/rorymccourt/status/625540621457960960
Jane Kelsey would do better focusing on those parts of the TPPA deal that lowers the net value of the deal such as those extending the term of patents over the drugs. All international treaties are about trade-offs.
The most important reason for focusing on intellectual property law in trade agreements is Kelsey is likely to actually win people over that are not on the far left, including many on the right of politics over to her cause. Kelsey is too busy rounding up the usual suspects.
Ranting about big corporate conspiracies and the investor state dispute settlement clauses puts people off.
As copyright duration's at play in #TPPA, a reminder of the costs when copyright's too long.
offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/orphan… http://t.co/tOtihpDmSU—
Eric Crampton (@EricCrampton) July 29, 2015
These gusts of paranoia lose support on issues where there is common ground to be suspicious about the growing scope of trade agreements and their reach behind borders.
Regulatory harmonisation is advisable only when there are compelling reasons such as the prevention of hazards or technical compatibility of products – do the plugs fit into each other? As Sykes argues:
as a normative matter, harmonization is inferior to a legal system that tolerates regulatory differences subject to legal constraints, and that relies on mutual recognition where appropriate (the exception to this claim being matters of technical compatibility between products).
Related, as a positive manner, harmonization will often lack any political constituency and thus instances of true harmonization will be rare.
Who has heavily guarded borders?
25 Jul 2015 Leave a comment
in international economic law, international economics, International law, politics - Australia, politics - USA Tags: Australia, British politics, economics of immigration, EU, illegal immigration, Mexico, North Korea, Spain
The walled world
– http://t.co/dXmzCUrjpD—
Amazing Maps (@Amazing_Maps) July 13, 2015
The track record of the United Nations Human Rights Council
13 Jul 2015 Leave a comment
in International law, laws of war, war and peace Tags: Gaza Strip, Hamas, Israel, Left-wing hypocrisy, United Nations
Per capita receipt of asylum seekers
19 Jun 2015 Leave a comment
in Economics of international refugee law, international economic law, International law, law and economics, politics - Australia, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA Tags: asylum seekers, economics of immigration
Sweden – the OECD's highest per capita recipient of asylum seekers bit.ly/1vfFEUh http://t.co/y6DmdJjAsE—
Guardian Data (@GuardianData) December 02, 2014
Hypocritical Greens betray NZ sovereignty to US court decision but oppose investor state dispute settlement on sovereignty grounds
10 May 2015 Leave a comment
in defence economics, economics of crime, international economic law, international economics, International law, law and economics, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA Tags: foreign policy, free trade agreements, green hypocrisy, green party, investor state disputes settlement, national security, preferential trading agreements, war against terror
The Greens are happy to betray New Zealand’s sovereignty to a US court where New Zealand’s side of the story was not heard, New Zealand was not a litigant, New Zealand was not named in the proceedings and New Zealand had not agreed to waive its sovereign immunity under US law.
The Greens on the other hand are hysterical about the prospect of New Zealand voluntarily submitting to investor state disputes settlement through an international treaty. International treaties normally are about trading in sovereignty: you give up some form of sovereignty return for something you value more.
It is thoroughly hypocritical of the Greens to argue the New Zealand should bow down to a foreign court when that court rules in a way that it favours its ideological agenda but refuse to support the principle of international arbitration in circumstances where that may advance New Zealand’s national interests.
At a minimum, New Zealand itself chose to give up its sovereignty if it agrees to investor state dispute settlement in a trade agreement. The decision was not imposed by a foreign court where it was not heard nor was a party.
Of particular concern to the Greens is international arbitration could "trump the public’s vote vote". New Zealand has repeatedly elected parties that support the alliance with America, and support a robust security and intelligence policy, including electronic surveillance as part of the war on terror.
The last week of the 2014 general election campaign was dominated by the Government Security Communications Bureau and its cooperation with the National Security Agency and the extent to which New Zealand security services engaged in electronic surveillance in New Zealand and abroad.
The Greens want to subvert that democratic decision that has been repeated over many New Zealand elections about national security and foreign relations to defer to an American court when New Zealand didn’t even appear as a party.
The US Court of appeal was deciding an issue of statutory interpretation of the Patriot Act. There was no constitutional issues at hand.
The Patriot Act expires in a month unless it is extended. Congress has ample opportunity to amend the renewed law to overturn the appeal court’s decision for the future operation of its security and intelligence laws.
The Greens want a Court of Appeal interpretation of the American Patriot Act to extend to New Zealand without a vote of the New Zealand people or the parliament having any say on whether to give up New Zealand’s sovereignty or waive sovereign immunity in American courts.
.
More evidence of mass kidnapping of environmental activists
08 Apr 2015 Leave a comment
in environmental economics, environmentalism, international economic law, international economics, International law, law and economics, politics - Australia, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA Tags: green hypocrisy, ozone layer
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3577778/ozone_composite.0.png)
Why aren’t they in the streets celebrating the recovery of the ozone layer, pursuant to an international treaty negotiated by the Reagan administration that banned CFCs as soon as they were not required any longer in developed countries:
International efforts to control the gases, particularly among developed countries, began to occur in the mid-1980s as new information appeared that strengthened the link between CFCs and the deterioration of stratospheric ozone. This increased the expected benefits of international action.
At the same time, domestic political opposition began to diminish when Du Pont announced they would no longer make CFCs. A reason for Du Pont’s attitude change was that European firms had increased their share of the CFC market, and in response Du Pont had developed CFC substitutes.
Accordingly, since international controls on CFCs provided them a competitive advantage, Du Pont announced that they would no longer make CFCs and the company lobbied the U.S. Congress for international regulation.
Under the 1987 Montreal Protocol, world leaders agreed to phase out CFCs, and eventually the hole in the ozone layer stopped expanding. In 2014, a UN assessment found that the ozone layer is just now starting to heal — and should be back to its 1980 levels by 2050 or so.
Exclusive economic zones around the world – New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone is rather large
08 Jan 2015 Leave a comment
in fisheries economics, international economic law, international economics, International law, resource economics Tags: exclusive economic zones, Law of the Sea, maps, national sovereignty
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments