#investor-state dispute settlement

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from Inside Climate News:

Before the sun set on his inauguration day, Joe Biden reversed a raft of his predecessor’s deregulation policies with the stroke of a pen. Among them was an order revoking the permit for the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline. 

Canceling the project was a campaign pledge to address the climate crisis. But looming over that decision was the risk that an obscure but powerful international legal system could force the United States to pay billions of dollars to Keystone XL’s Canadian developer, TC Energy. 

That system—embedded in thousands of trade and investment treaties—allows corporations to drag governments before panels of arbitrators, usually behind closed doors. Governments have been ordered to pay billions of dollars in damages to oil and mining companies for violating those treaties. While the system was intended to protect foreign investors from unfair treatment or asset seizure, many environmental advocates, lawyers and politicians say it is now being used to win awards from governments that enact new environmental regulations or raise taxes on polluting industries.

Increasingly, these critics warn the system threatens climate action by punishing governments that phase out fossil fuels. 

The $15 billion claim TC Energy brought against the United States was one of the largest-ever in response to a climate policy. The company lost earlier this month, but the case was dismissed on a technicality and its outcome says nothing about other pending cases around the world.

Australia, Canada, Colombia and Slovenia are facing tens of billions of dollars in claims from companies for phasing out coal power plants, rejecting mining licenses or disallowing liquefied natural gas permits. In 2022, Italy was ordered to pay a British oil company roughly $200 million after offshore drilling restrictions upended the firm’s development plans. 

In other countries, the system set up for these claims—investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS—has driven up costs of closing coal power plants, prevented governments from canceling oil and gas licenses or otherwise impeded efforts to reduce fossil fuel use, government ministers and researchers say. Companies even win awards despite leaving behind environmental contamination, violating human rights or breaking national laws.

The ISDS system is uniquely daunting for governments because arbitrators overseeing the cases can award compensation not just for real losses but also for unearned, expected future profits. It’s a key reason awards can balloon into the billions of dollars. 

Governments already face numerous practical and political obstacles as they attempt to move away from fossil fuels, said Canadian lawyer and professor Gus Van Harten, who has studied ISDS’s evolution for decades. “This system is providing an unwarranted and unexpected further minefield.” 

As Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland, put it in a speech this year: “I cannot overstate just how perverse this is.”

[mostlysignssomeportents]

End of the line for corporate sovereignty

I'm on tour with my new, nationally bestselling novel The Bezzle! Catch me next weekend (Mar 30/31) in ANAHEIM at WONDERCON, then in Boston with Randall "XKCD" Munroe (Apr 11), then Providence (Apr 12), and beyond!

Back in the 1950s, a new, democratically elected Iranian government nationalized foreign oil interests. The UK and the US then backed a coup, deposing the progressive government with one more hospitable to foreign corporations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization_of_the_Iranian_oil_industry

This nasty piece of geopolitical skullduggery led to the mother-of-all-blowbacks: the Anglo-American puppet regime was toppled by the Ayatollah and his cronies, who have led Iran ever since.

For the US and the UK, the lesson was clear: they needed a less kinetic way to ensure that sovereign countries around the world steered clear of policies that undermined the profits of their oil companies and other commercial giants. Thus, the "investor-state dispute settlement" (ISDS) was born.

The modern ISDS was perfected in the 1990s with the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). The ECT was meant to foam the runway for western corporations seeking to take over ex-Soviet energy facilities, by making those new post-Glasnost governments promise to never pass laws that would undermine foreign companies' profits.

But as Nick Dearden writes for Jacobin, the western companies that pushed the east into the ECT failed to anticipate that ISDSes have their own form of blowback:

https://jacobin.com/2024/03/energy-charter-treaty-climate-change/

When the 2000s rolled around and countries like the Netherlands and Denmark started to pass rules to limit fossil fuels and promote renewables, German coal companies sued the shit out of these governments and forced them to either back off on their democratically negotiated policies, or to pay gigantic settlements to German corporations.

ISDS settlements are truly grotesque: they're not just a matter of buying out existing investments made by foreign companies and refunding them money spent on them. ISDS tribunals routinely order governments to pay foreign corporations all the profits they might have made from those investments.

For example, the UK company Rockhopper went after Italy for limiting offshore drilling in response to mass protests, and took $350m out of the Italian government. Now, Rockhopper only spent $50m on Adriatic oil exploration – the other $300m was to compensate Rockhopper for the profits it might have made if it actually got to pump oil off the Italian coast.

Governments, both left and right, grew steadily more outraged that ISDSes tied the hands of democratically elected lawmakers and subordinated their national sovereignty to corporate sovereignty. By 2023, nine EU countries were ready to pull out of the ECT.

But the ECT had another trick up its sleeve: a 20-year "sunset" clause that bound countries to go on enforcing the ECT's provisions – including ISDS rulings – for two decades after pulling out of the treaty. This prompted European governments to hit on the strategy of a simultaneous, mass withdrawal from the ECT, which would prevent companies registered in any of the ex-ECT countries from suing under the ECT.

It will not surprise you to learn that the UK did not join this pan-European coalition to wriggle out of the ECT. On the one hand, there's the Tories' commitment to markets above all else (as the Trashfuture podcast often points out, the UK government is the only neoliberal state so committed to austerity that it's actually dismantling its own police force). On the other hand, there's Rishi Sunak's planet-immolating promise to "max out North Sea oil."

But as the rest of the world transitions to renewables, different blocs in the UK – from unions to Tory MPs – are realizing that the country's membership in ECT and its fossil fuel commitment is going to make it a world leader in an increasingly irrelevant boondoggle – and so now the UK is also planning to pull out of the ECT.

As Dearden writes, the oil-loving, market-worshipping UK's departure from the ECT means that the whole idea of ISDSes is in danger. After all, some of the world's poorest countries are also fed up to the eyeballs with ISDSes and threatening to leave treaties that impose them.

One country has already pulled out: Honduras. Honduras is home to Prospera, a libertarian autonomous zone on the island of Roatan. Prospera was born after a US-backed drug kingpin named Porfirio Lobo Sosa overthrew the democratic government of Manuel Zelaya in 2009.

The Lobo Sosa regime established a system of special economic zones (known by their Spanish acronym, "ZEDEs"). Foreign investors who established a ZEDE would be exempted from Honduran law, allowing them to create "charter cities" with their own private criminal and civil code and tax system.

This was so extreme that the Honduran supreme court rejected the plan, so Lobo Sosa fired the court and replaced them with cronies who'd back his play.

A group of crypto bros capitalized on this development, using various ruses to establish a ZEDE on the island of Roatan, a largely English-speaking, Afro-Carribean island known for its marine reserve, its SCUBA diving, and its cruise ship port. This "charter city" included every bizarre idea from the long history of doomed "libertarian exit" projects, so ably recounted in Raymond Craib's excellent 2022 book Adventure Capitalism:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/06/14/this-way-to-the-egress/#terra-nullius

Right from the start, Prospera was ill starred. Paul Romer, the Nobel-winning economist most closely associated with the idea of charter cities, disavowed the project. Locals hated it – the tourist shops and restaurants on Roatan all may sport dusty "Bitcoin accepted here" signs, but not one of those shops takes cryptocurrency.

But the real danger to Prospera came from democracy itself. When Xiomara Castro – wife of Manuel Zelaya – was elected president in 2021, she announced an end to the ZEDE program. Prospera countered by suing Honduras under the ISDS provisions of the Central America Free Trade Agreements, seeking $10b, a third of the country's GDP.

In response, President Castro announced her country's departure from CAFTA, and the World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes:

https://theintercept.com/2024/03/19/honduras-crypto-investors-world-bank-prospera/

An open letter by progressive economists in support of President Castro condemns ISDSes for costing latinamerican countries $30b in corporate compensation, triggered by laws protecting labor rights, vulnerable ecosystems and the climate:

https://progressive.international/wire/2024-03-18-economists-the-era-of-corporate-supremacy-in-the-international-trade-system-is-coming-to-an-end/en

As Ryan Grim writes for The Intercept, the ZEDE law is wildly unpopular with the Honduran people, and Merrick Garland called the Lobo Sosa regime that created it "a narco-state where violent drug traffickers were allowed to operate with virtual impunity":

https://theintercept.com/2024/03/19/honduras-crypto-investors-world-bank-prospera/

The world's worst people are furious and terrified about Honduras's withdrawal from its ISDS. After 60+ years of wrapping democracy in chains to protect corporate profits, the collapse of the corporate kangaroo courts that override democratic laws represents a serious threat to oligarchy.

As Dearden writes, "elsewhere in the world, ISDS cases have been brought specifically on the basis that governments have not done enough to suppress protest movements in the interests of foreign capital."

It's not just poor countries in the global south, either. When Australia passed a plain-packaging law for tobacco, Philip Morris relocated offshore in order to bring an ISDS case against the Australian government in a bid to remove impediments to tobacco sales:

https://isds.bilaterals.org/?philip-morris-vs-australia-isds

And in 2015, the WTO sanctioned the US government for its "dolphin-safe" tuna labeling, arguing that this eroded the profits of corporations that fished for tuna in ways that killed a lot of dolphins:

https://theintercept.com/2015/11/24/wto-ruling-on-dolphin-safe-tuna-labeling-illustrates-supremacy-of-trade-agreements/

In Canada, the Conservative hero Steven Harper entered into the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement, which banned Canada from passing laws that undermined the profits of Chinese corporations for 31 years (the rule expires in 2045):

https://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/harper-oks-potentially-unconstitutional-china-canada-fipa-deal-coming-force-october-1

Harper's successor, Justin Trudeau, went on to sign the Canada-EU Trade Agreement that Harper negotiated, including its ISDS provisions that let EU corporations override Canadian laws:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-eu-parliament-schulz-ceta-1.3415689

There was a time when any challenge to ISDS was a political third rail. Back in 2015, even hinting that ISDSes should be slightly modified would send corporate thinktanks into a frenzy:

https://www.techdirt.com/2015/07/20/eu-proposes-to-reform-corporate-sovereignty-slightly-us-think-tank-goes-into-panic-mode/

But over the years, there's been a growing consensus that nations can only be sovereign if corporations aren't. It's one thing to treat corporations as "persons," but another thing altogether to elevate them above personhood and subordinate entire nations to their whims.

With the world's richest countries pulling out of ISDSes alongside the world's poorest ones, it's feeling like the end of the road for this particularly nasty form of corporate corruption.

And not a moment too soon.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/27/korporate-kangaroo-kourts/#corporate-sovereignty

Image: ChrisErbach (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UnitedNations_GeneralAssemblyChamber.jpg

CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

[meret118]

It largely evolved to constrain national pushes for social and environmental regulation.

More than $100 billion of public money has been awarded to private investors in investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) courts, according to the most comprehensive analysis yet.

[mariacallous]

Years later, Luisa Connor and Vanessa Cárdenas would look back ruefully on the day foreigners visited their beachfront village with plans for a development next door. They had no idea the effort was backed by Silicon Valley billionaires who wanted to build a “startup city” or that a relatively new Honduran law would allow them to establish this semiautonomous enclave. They could not foresee they would lead a fight against it that would launch their village into national politics and prompt an international legal dispute, threatening to bankrupt the country. They thought it was just another hotel.

Crawfish Rock is a fishing village of a few hundred people on the island of Roatán. It is the kind of place where children roam free, scouring the forest for iguanas or catching crabs under the Caribbean’s glassy waters.

It is also the site of Próspera ZEDE, a libertarian experiment in market-driven governance whose backers are suing Honduras for up to $10.775 billion. Prospera’s Delaware-based creator, Honduras Próspera Inc., argues its project has a right to continue operating even though the law that enabled it was repealed two years ago, and that it should retain that right for 50 years. To make this claim, Honduras Próspera cited a trade agreement Honduras signed with the United States, where the investors are based, and an unrelated treaty with Kuwait.

Honduras Próspera’s is just one of 15 similar claims against the Honduran government, nearly all of which have been filed since February 2023. Collectively, investors who brought four of the claims are seeking up to $12.3 billion, nearly twice as much as Honduras’ entire public expenditures in 2022. The amount sought in the other 11 claims has not been made public. Should Honduras be ordered to pay any of those judgments, it will have no right of appeal.

How could this be?

The cases were brought under an obscure system in international law known as investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS. Written into thousands of investment treaties and trade agreements, the system allows foreign investors to bring arbitration claims against states. While it was intended to protect investors against asset seizures or corrupt court judgments, critics say corporations now use ISDS to extract huge sums when governments tighten regulations or levy new taxes.

The cases are heard by ad-hoc tribunals of arbitrators who are generally corporate lawyers. There is no precedent and no appeal. Tribunals have issued billions of dollars in awards even in cases where corporations violated domestic laws, polluted the environment or trampled on basic human rights.

The ISDS system has also emerged as a threat to climate action. Fossil fuel companies have begun suing governments that try to phase out coal, oil and gas. In the case of poor, climate-vulnerable nations like Honduras, multibillion-dollar claims can worsen a poverty trap.

In a cruel cycle, climate change has contributed to Honduras’ soaring debt, according to a recent United Nations report, while more debt hampers the country’s ability to spend money protecting its people from extreme weather. As a result, “significant proportions of the population have been internally displaced or displaced across international borders.”

Honduras’ ISDS saga traces back to 2009, when a military coup toppled the government, and to 2021, when the wife of the deposed president was elected to lead the country, ending 12 years of rightwing authoritarian rule. Xiomara Castro ran for office pledging to reverse and reform many of the policies of the post-coup governments, widely seen as corrupt.

After Castro delivered on these promises—repealing the so-called charter cities law that enabled Próspera, for example, and enacting a law empowering her government to renegotiate electricity contracts—foreign investors brought ISDS claims.

Supporters of this process say companies filing claims are merely enforcing the rights given to them in trade and investment treaties. But many activists campaigning to reform or abolish ISDS say Honduras’ situation, and the Próspera case in particular, highlight the system’s injustices and failures.

“There are a few cases that are so egregious that I think could potentially bring down the system,” said Ladan Mehranvar, a senior legal researcher for the Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment. She noted that key leaders of the government that enacted the charter cities law have since been convicted in US federal court of running the country as a narco-state, and that the case could hobble Honduras’ finances. “I feel like this one is just one of them, because it’s so crazy.”

Dozens of Democrats in Congress have been calling on the Biden administration to intervene in the Próspera case and to remove ISDS from the trade agreement on which the claim is based.

“The ISDS system is a scam snuck into trade deals to allow large multinational corporations to bypass domestic courts and challenge legitimate public policies,” with Honduras Próspera’s claim as a prominent example, US senator Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, told Inside Climate News in a statement.

While Biden administration officials have pledged that they would not include ISDS in future agreements, they have equivocated on whether they will strip it from the United States’ more than 50 treaties and agreements already in place. They have declined to weigh in publicly on the Próspera case.

Instead, the State Department has issued statements warning that the Castro administration’s policies could discourage foreign investment, comments many read as supportive of Honduras Próspera.

Nicholas C. Dranias, Honduras Próspera’s general counsel, said in a written statement to Inside Climate News that the Honduran government “has committed many illegal and expropriatory acts against residents, businesses, and investors in Próspera ZEDE.” (ZEDE is the Spanish acronym for Zones for Employment and Economic Development.)

He added that the company and its affiliates “remain willing to discuss a negotiated resolution” to its ISDS claim. “Whether the Government of Honduras is ultimately held liable for US$10.775 billion remains entirely in its own hands because it could simply honor the 50-year legal stability guarantee it made to investors in Próspera ZEDE.”

Gerardo Torres, Honduras’ vice minister of foreign affairs, said the country cannot afford to pay what the investors are seeking—nearly two-thirds of its people live in poverty and the nation is already saddled with $16.5 billion in debt. The government has decided to fight the claims rather than negotiate, he said, speaking from a couch in his office, with Tegucigalpa’s hodgepodge development sprawling in the window behind him.

In large part, the country’s strategy relies on an argument that this isn’t just about Honduras.

“If they somehow make us pay all the money that they’re talking right now, then they’re going to break a state,” Torres said. “And then you’re going to see how private corporations can destroy states.”

A 14-Story Tower, $25,000 Gene Therapy, and a Brawl

Crawfish Rock lies at the end of a largely unpaved road that terminates in the village center, within sight of the beach. Pastel wooden houses with corrugated metal roofs surround the clearing, raised high on stilts.

“Growing up in a community like Crawfish was really something desirous,” said Connor, whose first language is the Caribbean English known in Roatán as “island English.” Like many other villages in Roatán, Crawfish Rock is a community of Black Caribbean descendants.

Connor has spent her entire life here and she roams the village as if it were one large home, plucking wild almonds from trees lining the beach and mangos from an unruly orchard next to Cárdenas’ house. At a relative’s home off the village center, Connor emerged from the back with a length of sugar cane, which she peeled with a machete before chewing, then stopped to talk with her siblings, who were leaning against a blue wooden boat nearby, about to head out fishing.

“We have everything that a human needs to survive,” she said.

Connor and Cárdenas have been friends since childhood and now serve as president and vice president of the village patronato, or community council, positions they assumed when they realized that Próspera wasn’t just another tourism development.

By September 2020, villagers had learned that the project was operating under a law that allowed for a type of special economic zone known as a ZEDE. The ZEDE law drew on the ideas of Paul Romer, an American who would later serve as chief economist at the World Bank and who had been promoting the idea of charter cities as models of development. In 2011, the Honduran Congress passed a law based on Romer’s ideas, but the law was ruled unconstitutional by the country’s Supreme Court the following year. The president of the congress at the time then used a disputed legislative maneuver to replace four judges who had ruled against the law, and lawmakers enacted a new, slightly modified version in 2013.

The law allowed private investors to create their own, largely self-governing zones, with authorities far beyond other economic zones in Honduras and around the world that offer incentives for foreign investment. ZEDEs were empowered to write their own civil laws, enact their own regulations and building codes and create their own courts. Businesses would pay taxes not to municipal or national governments but to the ZEDE, which could set its own rates. Only a small portion of the revenue collected would be passed on to the central government.

The ZEDEs were overseen not directly by the government but by a committee appointed by Honduras’ president, and the initial members were stocked with foreigners, many American conservatives, including the son of former US President Ronald Reagan and the anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist.

Próspera became the first ZEDE in December 2017, funded by a venture capital firm founded to help launch charter cities around the world. The firm, Pronomos Capital, was backed by prominent billionaires, including Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen. Próspera began attracting biotechnology companies and other businesses by promising a “flexible and incentive-based regulatory environment designed to foster innovation while ensuring optimal levels of safety.” Companies could choose from a number of regulatory frameworks or propose their own. Próspera’s advertising promised “a favorable tax regime.” The company says it has registered more than 220 businesses, which can be established by “(e)Residents,” who do not necessarily live or work in Roatán.

Today, not far from Crawfish Rock’s wooden houses and unpaved paths, in a country where more than half the population lives on less than $7 a day, visitors can spend $25,000 to inject themselves with a gene therapy that aims to delay aging, available only on Roatán and in Dubai. A Bitcoin center perched on a ridge overlooking the Caribbean teaches locals about the benefits of cryptocurrency and how to use it—Próspera ZEDE has adopted the digital coin as one of its currencies. Another company offers “subdermal implantation services and a variety of cybernetic upgrades,” saying: “We help people become self-sovereign cyborgs.”

About 1,000 feet from the center of Crawfish Rock, a developer has cleared a section of forested hillside in the ZEDE and erected a 14-story mixed-use tower unlike anything else on the island. The developer did not obtain permits from the local or national government for the building but instead from Próspera ZEDE, which Honduras Próspera said “is a Honduran government authority” similar to a municipality.

Perhaps most alarming for people in Crawfish Rock, the law created a process for Honduras to expropriate land on behalf of the ZEDEs through eminent domain in order to expand. Honduras has a dark history of land conflict, including the forced sale of farmers’ land to large corporations and violent attacks on those who resisted.

Honduras Próspera says its ZEDE has forbidden itself from expropriating land with a resolution it passed in August 2020, and the ZEDE has assured residents that it “will not, and cannot, legally expropriate properties to expand its boundaries.” But Connor and Cárdenas do not trust them.

As the two women began fighting Próspera and organizing against the ZEDEs, their relationship with the company grew increasingly contentious. In September 2020, as Honduras was grappling with the Covid-19 pandemic, the company’s chief executive Erick Brimen sent Cárdenas’ mother a voice message. Brimen wanted to hold a public meeting in the village, but the patronato had sent him a letter urging him not to, in light of social distancing requirements. The women were violating his rights, Brimen said in the message, adding, “they can end up in jail.” If Connor and Cárdenas didn’t retract their letter within hours, he said, “we’re going to take action, which again could result in legal action against your daughter.”

Brimen held the meeting, and it ended in a scuffle with him being ushered off the stage as police arrived, video shows.

Honduras Próspera said “the informational meeting, with appropriate social distancing, was essential to present a project that currently provides opportunities to the community, ensuring their rights are exercised in a safe, outdoor environment.”

Próspera employs residents in the village and has drawn some local support. Ariel Webster, who grew up in Crawfish Rock and does not work in the ZEDE, said Próspera has helped people there.

The situation has caused division within Crawfish Rock, pitting local employees against Connor, Cárdenas and those who support their fight. Last year, when the patronato hosted a group of ministers and delegates from the capital without inviting representatives from Próspera, some of the company’s supporters arrived at the meeting and clashed with those in attendance. The meeting ended in a brawl and a bloodied nose for Cárdenas.

Most concerning for Connor is that with the ISDS case filed, even a government that supposedly supports their fight against Próspera has done little to stop it from operating. She wonders if anything will stand in the way of the ZEDE’s expansion.

“If they don’t obey the central government,” Connor said, “what would they do to us?”

A Violent History

When the ZEDE law passed in 2013, Honduras was in crisis. The post-coup administrations cracked down violently on dissent. Protesters and dissidents were kidnapped, raped and murdered. In some cases, gunmen killed the children of activists rather than dissidents themselves, to inflict maximum fear.

These crimes were rarely investigated. With the homicide rate soaring, Honduras became one of the most violent countries in the world.

At the same time, the rightwing governments accelerated a trend begun in the 1990s, at the urging of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, of privatizing state services and cutting public expenditures. Congress broke up the national energy company and began contracting with private enterprises to build new power generation, especially dams and solar farms. A new law eased the approval process for mines.

The flurry of private contracts became part of a “kleptocratic” regime, according to one 2017 report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Nearly all of the ISDS claims have their roots in contracts, laws or other agreements made during this period.

For the farmers and villagers being pushed off their land, or having their water resources privatized, the development rush converged with spiraling violence.

“Nowhere are you more likely to be killed for standing up to companies that grab land and trash the environment,” the international watchdog group Global Witness wrote in 2017, “than in Honduras.”

An opponent of a project that became the subject of two ISDS claims was murdered the following year.

At the center of these new laws and contracts was Juan Orlando Hernández, who was president of the congress when the ZEDE law was passed and was elected president of Honduras later in 2013. Hernández would serve two terms as president—a step prohibited by the Constitution. The US Department of Justice would later charge that Hernández used millions of dollars in payments from drug cartels to help buy off local officials to secure his electoral victories.

Eventually, Hernández, his brother and his chief of the national police would be extradited to the United States and convicted of drug trafficking and weapons charges. Hernández, US Attorney General Merrick B. Garland said, used his time in power to run “one of the largest and most violent drug-trafficking conspiracies in the world.”

Hernández was convicted in March of this year and sentenced to 45 years in prison, while the former national police chief was sentenced to 19 years. His brother is serving a life sentence. Hernández did not reply to a request for an interview from prison.

Brimen, Honduras Próspera’s CEO, who immigrated to the United States from Venezuela, has said his goal is to provide a model that would foster prosperity, helping alleviate poverty by streamlining unnecessary bureaucracies that hobble governments, especially in parts of Latin America.

Honduras Próspera said it “has no connection to any corruption in Honduras whatsoever.” The company has not been publicly accused of being involved in corruption or in passing the ZEDE law. But some residents, activists and members of the current government criticize the company for taking advantage of the law, given how it was passed, and for working with Hernández’s administration.

“They came and did business with the darkest side of our country,” said Rosa Danelia Hendrix, speaking in Spanish. Hendrix serves as president of the federation of patronatos for Roatán and the other Bay Islands, and helped lead the fight against the ZEDEs.

Up Against an Economic Superpower

The Castro administration’s fight against the ZEDEs is being waged from Tegucigalpa’s Government Civic Center, a set of gleaming buildings erected by Hernández’s government. The neat, modern plaza sits next to the presidential palace and houses many government offices, but its pedestrian entrance opens onto a busy street without a turn-off, resulting in a chaotic scene of double-parked taxis and honking, as if its architects failed to imagine that citizens would visit.

There, Fernando Garcia and a team of half-a-dozen young staffers compile documents and compose fervent social media posts denouncing the ZEDEs—there are two others apart from Próspera, focused on agricultural exports and mixed-use development, neither of which has filed an ISDS claim.

Garcia operates from a glass-walled conference room on a mostly empty floor, surrounded by stacks of folders, articles and books, including heavily earmarked copies of the Honduran Constitution and the Bible. He speaks passionately of his decades of service to the Honduran people—he served as economy minister and in other positions before the coup and is now presidential commissioner against the ZEDEs.

Garcia began his ZEDE fight as a member of the opposition to the post-coup administrations, soon after the law was enacted. He spent his time driving around the country to raise awareness and round up opposition, he said, mortgaging his home to help pay for gas and hotel rooms.

People would look at him in disbelief when he described what the ZEDEs were, “like I was a weirdo, or some strange animal,” he said in Spanish.

It was only once he was back in government that he realized how difficult the fight would be. Garcia said he met with leaders of the ZEDEs and requested information detailing their relationships with the government, but received little beyond heavily redacted documents. He said he asked what concessions they would like to continue operating in the country to replace the special status afforded by the repealed ZEDE law, but got nowhere.

Honduras Próspera said it sought negotiations with the government but received no response and has not received offers to switch to an alternative type of special economic zone. It added, “None of the other special regimes in Honduras offer similar levels of stability, international competitiveness, or compatibility” with the company’s business model.

Garcia said he does not even know whether there is still a commission in place to manage the ZEDEs. Próspera and the other ZEDEs would need such a commission to oversee their operations, yet Garcia and his team have been unable to uncover any documents indicating the existence of such a commission or identifying its current members.

Today, the ZEDEs appear to be operating in a cloud of legal uncertainty. The law that enabled them was repealed in April 2022, yet that law contained language providing a minimum 10-year transition if such a repeal were to take place. This month, Honduras’ Supreme Court ruled that the law and a set of constitutional amendments that accompanied it were unconstitutional and that the decision would affect existing ZEDEs. But it has yet to publish the ruling so the full implications remain unclear.

Honduras Próspera argues the ZEDE has the right to continue operating for decades. That claim is based on the 2014 investment treaty Honduras signed with Kuwait, which included language that guarantees the legal status of the ZEDEs for 50 years in the event their enabling law was repealed. Honduras Próspera says it gained access to this through the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement, signed by the United States and Honduras, which includes a so-called “most-favored-nation” clause. The controversial clause allows foreign investors like Honduras Próspera to cut and paste more favorable provisions from other investment treaties, regardless of whether their home governments are parties to the other agreements.

The full nature of Honduras Próspera’s ISDS claim remains unclear because the pleading is confidential, as are those for each of the other 14 cases against the country. But Honduras Próspera told Inside Climate News that the government has acted illegally by pressuring banks to close accounts for businesses registered in the ZEDE and forcing companies in the zone to pay taxes and fees on goods they purchase or import, among other steps.

In other ways, however, the ZEDE keeps operating, collecting its own taxes, allowing construction according to its own regulations, baffling and frustrating officials and residents of the country in which it is located.

Many of the people who made the fight against the ZEDEs a national issue blame not only Próspera but the Castro administration, too.

“We feel a great abandonment,” said Christopher Castillo, an environmental and human rights activist in Tegucigalpa, who said Castro and many others owe their electoral victories in part to the ZEDE fight. Speaking in Spanish, Castillo said the government should block companies from running clinical trials at Próspera, for example, or order construction halted at the 14-story tower, built largely after the ZEDE law was repealed.

Garcia, the presidential commissioner, insisted the ZEDEs are operating without legal authorization, but he acknowledged that the government has done little to enforce that perspective. He argued that Honduras is outmatched and needs to proceed cautiously.

“We are up against the greatest economic power in the world,” he said. Beyond the billionaires backing Próspera, he said, “you need to recognize that the United States government always protects two groups: Its soldiers and its businesspeople.”

Two weeks after Honduras Próspera notified Honduras of its intent to file its ISDS claim, in September 2022, its executives met with Roy Perrin, deputy chief of mission at the US embassy in Tegucigalpa “to talk about the investment climate in Honduras, the legal guaranties that allow entrepreneurs to create jobs and how sustainable investment can create economic opportunities for all Hondurans,” according to an embassy post on X written in Spanish.

The following month, Laura Dogu, the US ambassador to Honduras, gave a speech to the Honduran American Chamber of Commerce in Tegucigalpa in which she criticized some of the Castro administration’s policies on investment: “Without a doubt, all these actions are sending a clear message to companies that they should invest elsewhere, not in Honduras.” She added that the United States “will continue to exercise our right to meet with US investors and advocate for the resolution of trade disputes in accordance with the state of trade law.”

Honduras Próspera began rounding up support back home, too, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to lobby Congress and the White House, according to filings. The State Department issued an investment climate statement for Honduras in 2022 saying new policies, including the repeal of the ZEDE law, an energy law and an employment law, “have dramatically increased the uncertainty of investment returns.”

Senators Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) and Ben Cardin (D-Md.) sent a letter in October 2022 to Secretary of State Antony Blinken asking him to “encourage the Republic of Honduras to honor legal guarantees with respect to US investments made” in the ZEDEs.

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) introduced a bill that would have directed the US president to suspend foreign assistance to any government that failed to “engage in good faith consultations” with any US national who sought negotiations with that government, a reference to Honduras, according to one of Honduras Próspera’s lobbying reports.

The State Department declined to make anyone available for an interview for this article but issued a written statement saying it “seeks fair treatment of US investors and encourages adherence to the rule of law in Honduras as a key enabling factor for its economic development.”

Garcia said that even apart from the US government’s economic and diplomatic heft, Honduran officials are wary of taking action against Próspera because of the ISDS claim. Under the arcane rules of international arbitration, Garcia noted, companies can claim “indirect expropriation” when governments take actions that harm an investment’s profitability.

“We have to act very carefully,” Garcia said.

This outcome may be no accident. It speaks to what critics of ISDS call “regulatory chill,” where a claim or even the threat of a claim can intimidate a government into reconsidering the policies in question. Dranias, Honduras Próspera’s general counsel, said in a recent podcast interview that ISDS “can be very effective to, let’s just say, create the right incentives for good behavior.”

“An Example for the World”

ISDS was meant to remove disputes from the political realm, but claims often become deeply partisan. Honduras has long been dominated by the United States and its commercial interests—it is where the term “Banana Republic” was coined to describe the domination of the United Fruit and Standard Fruit companies—and the country’s fight against international arbitration comes as part of the leftist government’s larger orientation away from its neighbor to the north.

In response to the ISDS claims, Honduras withdrew from a World Bank treaty that helps govern the system, though that decision does not affect existing claims and foreign investors can still lodge ISDS cases using separate, similar rules overseen by the UN and others. The country has been negotiating a new trade agreement with China and strengthening ties with Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela.

Torres, the vice foreign minister, said the government has been revising and ending contracts that gave private corporations overly favorable terms, saddling the Honduran state and its people with high costs.

The previous administrations, Torres said, were not simply privatizing state assets but funneling public wealth to corporations and banks. Now that the Castro administration is trying to take that wealth back, he said, investors have turned to ISDS.

Torres’ large office is decorated with memorabilia and books that reflect an odd mix of Anglo pop culture and leftist politics. Framed prints of the album cover for Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band and The Godfather share space with books like “Capitalism’s Deadly Threat” and “Xi Jinping: The Governance and Administration of China.”

The Castro administration’s critics—in Honduras and the United States—say it is turning toward communism and demonizing foreign investors. The country’s largest business group called the government’s withdrawal from the World Bank convention “economic self-sabotage,” a position that was recently printed across the front page of the country’s largest newspaper.

The business group’s manager of legal affairs, Gustavo Solorzano Diaz, said in an interview in Spanish that investors have turned to ISDS because they don’t trust the Honduran legal system and because the government’s new policies in the energy sector and others threaten to expropriate assets.

The Castro administration has been plagued with its own corruption scandals, alleged ties to drug traffickers and accusations of nepotism. While overall violence in the country has declined, violence against women, human rights defenders and journalists increased last year, according to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. The administration has also been accused of suppressing dissent and using the military to fight crime.

And even some on the left have criticized the Castro administration’s handling of the ISDS claims. Castillo, the human rights activist, noted that the government failed to appoint an arbitrator in the Próspera case, leaving the spot to be filled by the World Bank.

Honduras’ solicitor general, Manuel Díaz-Galeas, who is handling the cases, declined to be interviewed or answer questions for this article. “I don’t care what the opponents and the plaintiffs’ spokespeople say,” Díaz-Galeas said in Spanish in a text message to Inside Climate News. “Tell them, if possible, that we will meet in court.”

All of this background, while deeply important to Honduras’ political leaders and many of its citizens, could prove largely irrelevant when and if the tribunals start hearing the ISDS claims.

“There is no rule that requires a law to be adopted in a democratic or transparent process,” said Yarik Kryvoi, a lawyer who specializes in international dispute resolution, including ISDS.

Torres said Honduras is prepared to lose some of the ISDS claims, even expects to, but that the country will use them to expose what he calls the hypocrisy of developed nations, especially on climate change.

“They’re talking about climate change and the impact of climate change, but when a government or a community or a population tries to defend their resources, they most likely are defeated in international courts that always prioritize the interests of the private companies,” Torres said.

Multimillion- or billion-dollar ISDS awards would inflate Honduras’ debt, and if it tried to avoid paying, investors could move to seize any foreign assets the country holds and close it off from capital markets.

“We cannot go to more environment summits without talking about the economics behind that,” Torres said.

He added, “The only strategy we have is to make our case an example for the world: ‘This is what they’re trying to do to a poor country that is one of the most vulnerable to climate change.’”

Back in Roatán, where rising seas are nibbling away at the coastline and heavy rains recently flooded parts of Crawfish Rock, the central government’s defiance is hard to see. If the country loses the ISDS cases, it would be taxpayers—the people of Crawfish Rock among them—who would pay, Cárdenas observed. Meanwhile, workers put the finishing touches on the 14-story tower. Próspera continues to hold weekly bonfires at its beach club, with live music and mixed drinks. And Connor and Cárdenas wonder what will happen next.

[female-malice]

Manifesto for an Ecosocial Energy Transition from the Peoples of the South

An appeal to leaders, institutions, and our brothers and sisters

More than two years after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic—and now alongside the catastrophic consequences of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—a “new normal” has emerged. This new global status quo reflects a worsening of various crises: social, economic, political, ecological, bio-medical, and geopolitical.

Environmental collapse approaches. Everyday life has become ever more militarized. Access to good food, clean water, and affordable health care has become even more restricted. More governments have turned autocratic. The wealthy have become wealthier, the powerful more powerful, and unregulated technology has only accelerated these trends.

The engines of this unjust status quo—capitalism, patriarchy, colonialism, and various fundamentalisms—are making a bad situation worse. Therefore, we must urgently debate and implement new visions of ecosocial transition and transformation that are gender-just, regenerative, and popular, that are at once local and international.

In this Manifesto for an Ecosocial Energy Transition from the Peoples of the South, we hold that the problems of the Global – geopolitical – South are different from those of the Global North and rising powers such as China. An imbalance of power between these two realms not only persists because of a colonial legacy but has deepened because of a neocolonial energy model. In the context of climate change, ever rising energy needs, and biodiversity loss, the capitalist centers have stepped up the pressure to extract natural wealth and rely on cheap labor from the countries on the periphery. Not only is the well-known extractive paradigm still in place but the North’s ecological debt to the South is rising.

What’s new about this current moment are the “clean energy transitions” of the North that have put even more pressure on the Global South to yield up cobalt and lithium for the production of high-tech batteries, balsa wood for wind turbines, land for large solar arrays, and new infrastructure for hydrogen megaprojects. This decarbonization of the rich, which is market-based and export-oriented, depends on a new phase of environmental despoliation of the Global South, which affects the lives of millions of women, men, and children, not to mention non-human life. Women, especially from agrarian societies, are amongst the most impacted. In this way, the Global South has once again become a zone of sacrifice, a basket of purportedly inexhaustible resources for the countries of the North.

A priority for the Global North has been to secure global supply chains, especially of critical raw materials, and prevent certain countries, like China, from monopolizing access. The G7 trade ministers, for instance, recently championed a responsible, sustainable, and transparent supply chain for critical minerals via international cooperation‚ policy, and finance, including the facilitation of trade in environmental goods and services through the WTO. The Global North has pushed for more trade and investment agreements with the Global South to satisfy its need for resources, particularly those integral to “clean energy transitions.” These agreements, designed to reduce barriers to trade and investment, protect and enhance corporate power and rights by subjecting states to potential legal suits according to investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms. The Global North is using these agreements to control the “clean energy transition” and create a new colonialism.

Governments of the South, meanwhile, have fallen into a debt trap, borrowing money to build up industries and large-scale agriculture to supply the North. To repay these debts, governments have felt compelled to extract more resources from the ground, creating a vicious circle of inequality. Today, the imperative to move beyond fossil fuels without any significant reduction in consumption in the North has only increased the pressure to exploit these natural resources. Moreover, as it moves ahead with its own energy transitions, the North has paid only lip service to its responsibility to address its historical and rising ecological debt to the South.

Minor changes in the energy matrix are not enough. The entire energy system must be transformed, from production and distribution to consumption and waste. Substituting electric vehicles for internal-combustion cars is insufficient, for the entire transportation model needs changing, with a reduction of energy consumption and the promotion of sustainable options.

In this way, relations must become more equitable not only between the center and periphery countries but also within countries between the elite and the public. Corrupt elites in the Global South have also collaborated in this unjust system by profiting from extraction, repressing human rights and environmental defenders, and perpetuating economic inequality.

Rather than solely technological, the solutions to these interlocked crises are above all political.

As activists, intellectuals, and organizations from different countries of the South, we call on change agents from different parts of the world to commit to a radical, democratic, gender-just, regenerative, and popular ecosocial transition that transforms both the energy sector and the industrial and agricultural spheres that depend on large-scale energy inputs. According to the different movements for climate justice, “transition is inevitable, but justice is not.”

We still have time to start a just and democratic transition. We can transition away from the neoliberal economic system in a direction that sustains life, combines social justice with environmental justice, brings together egalitarian and democratic values with a resilient, holistic social policy, and restores an ecological balance necessary for a healthy planet. But for that we need more political imagination and more utopian visions of another society that is socially just and respects our planetary common house.

The energy transition should be part of a comprehensive vision that addresses radical inequality in the distribution of energy resources and advances energy democracy. It should de-emphasize large-scale institutions—corporate agriculture, huge energy companies—as well as market-based solutions. Instead, it must strengthen the resilience of civil society and social organizations. Therefore, we make the following 8 demands:

We warn that an energy transition led by corporate megaprojects, coming from the Global North and accepted by numerous governments in the South, entails the enlargement of the zones of sacrifice throughout the Global South, the persistence of the colonial legacy, patriarchy, and the debt trap. Energy is an elemental and inalienable human right, and energy democracy should be our goal.

We call on the peoples of the South to reject false solutions that come with new forms of energy colonialism, now in the name of a Green transition. We make an explicit call to continue political coordination among the peoples of the south while also pursuing strategic alliances with critical sectors in the North.

To mitigate the havoc of the climate crisis and advance a just and popular ecosocial transition, we demand the payment of the ecological debt. This means, in the face of the disproportionate Global North responsibility for the climate crisis and ecological collapse, the real implementation of a system of compensation to the global South. This system should include a considerable transfer of funds and appropriate technology, and should consider sovereign debt cancellation for the countries of the South. We support reparations for loss and damage experienced by Indigenous peoples, vulnerable groups and local communities due to mining, big dams, and dirty energy projects.

We reject the expansion of the hydrocarbon border in our countries—through fracking and offshore projects—and repudiate the hypocritical discourse of the European Union, which recently declared natural gas and nuclear energy to be “clean energies.” As already proposed in the Yasuni Initiative in Ecuador in 2007 and today supported by many social sectors and organizations, we endorse leaving fossil fuels underground and generating the social and labor conditions necessary to abandon extractivism and move toward a post-fossil-fuel future.

We similarly reject “green colonialism” in the form of land grabs for solar and wind farms, the indiscriminate mining of critical minerals, and the promotion of technological “fixes” such as blue or grey hydrogen. Enclosure, exclusion, violence, encroachment, and entrenchment have characterized past and current North-South energy relations and are not acceptable in an era of ecosocial transitions.

We demand the genuine protection of environment and human rights defenders, particularly indigenous peoples and women at the forefront of resisting extractivism.

The elimination of energy poverty in the countries of the South should be among our fundamental objectives—as well as the energy poverty of parts of the Global North—through alternative, decentralized, equitably distributed projects of renewable energy that are owned and operated by communities themselves.

We denounce international trade agreements that penalize countries that want to curb fossil fuel extraction. We must stop the use of trade and investment agreements controlled by multinational corporations that ultimately promote more extraction and reinforce a new colonialism.

Our ecosocial alternative is based on countless struggles, strategies, proposals, and community-based initiatives. Our Manifesto connects with the lived experience and critical perspectives of Indigenous peoples and other local communities, women, and youth throughout the Global South. It is inspired by the work done on the rights of nature, buen vivir, vivir sabroso, sumac kawsay, ubuntu, swaraj, the commons, the care economy, agroecology, food sovereignty, post-extractivism, the pluriverse, autonomy, and energy sovereignty. Above all, we call for a radical, democratic, popular, gender-just, regenerative, and comprehensive ecosocial transition.

Following the steps of the Ecosocial and Intercultural Pact of the South, this Manifesto proposes a dynamic platform that invites you to join our shared struggle for transformation by helping to create collective visions and collective solutions.

We invite you to endorse this manifesto with your signature.

[shreygoyal]

View on Twitter

New barrier to climate action opening up in obscure and secretive part of international trade law: Countries could face up to US$340 billion in financial and legal risk due to Investor-state dispute settlements from cancelling fossil fuel projects.

(Source)

[kavita252]

Sydney contract review

Contract Review in Sydney: A Vital Step in Property Purchases

Buying property in Sydney is a significant investment that involves navigating complex legal and financial documents. Whether you are a first-time buyer or a seasoned investor, having a thorough contract review is essential to avoid potential risks and pitfalls. In Sydney, contract review services play a crucial role in ensuring that buyers fully understand the terms of the property purchase, safeguarding their interests throughout the process. This article will explore the importance of contract review services in Sydney and the property buying process in detail.

The Importance of Contract Review in Sydney

Property contracts in Sydney are legally binding documents that outline the terms of the sale, rights, obligations, and liabilities of both parties involved. Without a professional contract review, buyers may overlook key clauses that could have long-term implications, such as hidden costs, restrictive covenants, or unfavorable terms.

A contract review service in Sydney involves a comprehensive analysis of the contract by legal experts, ensuring that the buyer is fully aware of all conditions. This service provides peace of mind by identifying any potential issues and negotiating amendments if necessary. Moreover, it ensures that the contract complies with Australian property laws and regulations, preventing any legal complications in the future.

Key Aspects of a Property Contract Review in Sydney

When conducting a property contract review in Sydney, several key areas require careful attention:

Price and Payment Terms It’s essential to verify that the purchase price, deposit, and payment terms are clearly stated in the contract. The buyer should confirm that these figures align with the agreed-upon amounts and timelines to avoid confusion later in the process.

Special Conditions Many property contracts include special conditions, such as financing clauses or building inspections. A Sydney contract review ensures that these conditions are realistic and achievable, allowing the buyer to exit the contract without penalties if the conditions are not met.

Inclusions and Exclusions The contract should specify what fixtures, fittings, and other items are included in the sale. A thorough contract review will clarify whether any additional items (e.g., appliances or furniture) are part of the deal, avoiding disputes down the line.

Settlement Date The settlement date is when the buyer takes legal ownership of the property. It’s crucial to ensure that the proposed settlement date suits the buyer’s timeline and that any contingencies are manageable.

Title and Ownership Issues A contract review can reveal any issues with the property’s title, such as existing mortgages, easements, or disputes over boundaries. Addressing these issues before signing ensures that the buyer acquires a clear and marketable title.

Zoning and Development Restrictions The contract may include information on zoning laws and any restrictions on development or land use. This is particularly important if the buyer intends to renovate or redevelop the property. A property contract review in Sydney will clarify these details, ensuring that the buyer’s future plans for the property are feasible.

Why Choose Contract Review Services in Sydney?

Sydney’s real estate market is highly competitive, and property transactions can be fast-paced. Engaging a contract review service in Sydney ensures that you don’t make hasty decisions that could lead to legal disputes or financial loss. Here are some reasons why buyers should opt for professional contract review services:

Expertise in Local Laws: Property laws can vary significantly across different states in Australia. Legal professionals in Sydney are well-versed in the local property regulations, ensuring that your contract complies with these laws.

Identification of Hidden Risks: A contract review can uncover hidden risks that may not be immediately apparent, such as undisclosed defects or restrictive covenants.

Protection of Buyer’s Interests: Legal experts can negotiate favorable terms on behalf of the buyer, ensuring that their rights are protected and that they don’t fall into unfavorable agreements.

Stress Reduction: Buying property can be stressful, especially with the legal complexities involved. A contract review service takes much of the stress out of the process by providing clarity and addressing any concerns.

The Property Buying Process in Sydney

Understanding the property buying process in Sydney is essential for a smooth transaction. Below is an overview of the key steps:

Finance Approval Before searching for a property, it’s important to secure finance approval from a lender. This ensures that you know your budget and can move quickly when you find the right property.

Property Search and Inspection Once you have finance approval, you can begin the property search. Be sure to conduct thorough inspections of any properties of interest, either through open homes or private viewings.

Engage a Contract Review Service After finding a suitable property, you’ll be presented with a contract of sale. At this stage, engaging a Sydney contract review service is crucial to avoid any legal pitfalls. The legal expert will review the contract, suggest any necessary amendments, and ensure that all terms are in your favor.

Exchange of Contracts Once the contract has been reviewed and both parties are satisfied, the contracts are exchanged. This step typically involves the payment of a deposit, after which the contract becomes legally binding.

Settlement The final stage of the process is settlement, where the legal title of the property is transferred to the buyer. At this point, the buyer pays the balance of the purchase price and takes possession of the property.

Conclusion

Buying property in Sydney is an exciting venture, but it’s essential to approach the process with caution. A property contract review in Sydney ensures that you are fully aware of the terms of the sale and protected from any potential legal or financial risks. Engaging a professional contract review service in Sydney is a smart investment that safeguards your interests and provides peace of mind throughout the property buying process. Whether you’re a first-time buyer or an experienced investor, taking this step can make all the difference in a successful property purchase in Sydney. Read More

[legalcounseluk]

Commercial Construction Law Essentials: Why Legal Expertise is Crucial for Your Project

Construction projects are always a little bit legal in nature, regardless of the size of the project. It runs from as basic as starting a contract to actually resolving disputes. A thorough understanding of commercial construction law would be important for smooth performance. It encompasses everything related to construction-from contracts, regulations, to dispute resolution. Thus, all that an investor or contractor or developer needs is a contractor’s lawyer who guides the party to adhere to those local legal statutes and minimize risks.

Why You Need a Skilled Construction Lawyer

Expertise of Construction Law Specialists

Construction law is a specialty and not every solicitor can take care of the intricacies involved. Construction law experts know about the particular challenges of the industry to help with customized legal assistance. Their experience ranges from drafting contracts, delays in any project, green environmental compliances, and safety requirements. Construction law specialists can be consulted early to spare time and resources down the line.

Construction Development Legal Advice: Laying a Strong Foundation

Before breaking ground on any project, seeking construction development legal advice is essential. From zoning laws to permits, a construction lawyer helps ensure your project complies with all local, state, and federal regulations. Additionally, construction development legal advice helps in drafting contracts that protect your interests, from the planning phase to project completion.

Resolving Disputes Through Construction Litigation

Disputes are inevitable in the construction industry, whether due to delays, contract breaches, or quality of work. When these issues escalate, construction litigation is often necessary to resolve conflicts. A construction lawyer skilled in litigation can represent you in court, ensuring your interests are protected. Construction litigation can be costly, but with the right legal support, you can reach a favorable resolution efficiently.

Tackling Construction Disputes with the Right Support

Construction disputes can arise from various issues such as contract disagreements, project delays, or faulty work. A construction disputes solicitor can provide invaluable assistance in these situations. They work closely with clients to resolve issues through negotiation or court action if necessary. Choosing the right construction disputes solicitor ensures that any conflicts are addressed quickly, minimizing disruptions to your project.

Combining Expertise in Construction Law and Dispute Resolution

The Role of Construction Dispute Lawyers

When legal conflicts arise, turning to construction dispute lawyers can help protect your rights and interests. These lawyers specialize in resolving conflicts related to delays, contract breaches, and payment disputes. Construction dispute lawyers work diligently to negotiate settlements, ensuring that your project remains on track despite any legal challenges. They can also represent you in court if necessary, providing a robust defense against claims.

Who Are Building Construction Lawyers?

Building construction lawyers are experts who handle the legalities associated with the construction of buildings. Their responsibilities include reviewing contracts, ensuring compliance with regulations, and providing advice on disputes. If you’re facing legal challenges on a construction site, consulting a building construction lawyer is essential for safeguarding your project and avoiding costly legal pitfalls.

The Top Construction Law Firms in the Industry

Choosing the right construction law firm is critical for the success of any project. These firms offer specialized services, including contract drafting, dispute resolution, and legal advice on construction regulations. Working with reputable construction law firms ensures you have the legal expertise needed to avoid risks and keep your project on track.

The Role of Construction Solicitors in Project Success

Construction solicitors play a pivotal role in the success of construction projects. Their duties range from drafting legally binding contracts to offering advice on resolving disputes. Whether you need a contract reviewed or a dispute resolved, a construction solicitor provides the necessary legal guidance to ensure that your project runs smoothly.

Why Hiring a Construction Legal Expert is Crucial

Conclusion

Legal complexities drive the construction industry, and even the smallest miscalculations can blow a project from under its feet. Be it constructing contracts, dispute resolution, or regulatory compliance, working with a competent construction lawyer or construction law specialist is simply essential for your success. Once you understand the value of construction litigation and have the right legal team behind your development projects, you are well set to keep them on track and legally compliant.

It is essential that anyone involved in construction knows and interacts with commercial construction law to further their interests and ensure that the undertaking is successful. From preventing disputes to resolving them efficiently, legal expertise will form the nucleus around which all construction work revolves.

FAQ

1: Why is it important to hire a skilled construction lawyer for a project?

Answer: Hiring a skilled construction lawyer is crucial for the successful execution of a construction project. They help navigate legal complexities, ensuring that contracts are negotiated effectively and risks are managed properly. A construction lawyer is also vital for handling disputes, which can arise due to unforeseen conditions like delays or contract breaches. Their expertise can prevent costly mistakes, allowing the project to proceed smoothly from start to finish.

2: What role do construction dispute lawyers play in resolving conflicts?

Answer: Construction dispute lawyers specialize in resolving conflicts that arise in construction projects, such as delays, contract breaches, and quality issues. They work closely with clients to negotiate settlements and ensure that projects stay on track. If disputes escalate, these lawyers can represent clients in court, providing strong legal defense. Their goal is to protect clients’ rights and interests while minimizing disruptions to the construction process.

[oceangamingconsult]

Key Elements to Consider in Casino Business Legal Due Diligence

Legal due diligence in the casino business is a complex process that requires careful examination of various legal, regulatory, and operational aspects. Given the heavily regulated nature of the gambling industry, potential investors and operators must conduct thorough due diligence to ensure compliance, identify risks, and understand the operational landscape.

Here’s a comprehensive overview of what is typically included in the legal due diligence process for a casino business.

Critical Aspects of Legal Due Diligence in the Gambling Industry

1. Licensing and Regulatory Compliance

One of the foremost considerations in legal due diligence for a casino is ensuring that the business operates under the appropriate licenses. This includes:

Gaming Licenses: Verification of all necessary gaming licenses required by state or federal authorities. Each jurisdiction has its own regulatory body overseeing the issuance of licenses.

Compliance with Gaming Laws: Review of compliance with local, state, and federal gaming laws, including regulations on the types of games offered, advertising, and responsible gaming practices.

Renewals and Changes: Assessment of the status of any pending renewals, changes in ownership, or other modifications that might affect the casino's licensing status.

2. Corporate Structure and Governance

The corporate structure of a casino can significantly impact its operations. Key elements include:

Ownership Structure: Examination of the ownership structure to identify stakeholders, shareholders, and any corporate entities involved in the business.

Bylaws and Governance: Review of corporate bylaws and governance documents to understand decision-making processes, management roles, and operational policies.

Board of Directors: Evaluation of the board composition, including the qualifications and backgrounds of board members, to ensure they meet regulatory requirements.

3. Contracts and Agreements

A casino business is bound by numerous contracts that govern its operations. Important aspects to review include:

Supplier and Vendor Contracts: Analysis of agreements with suppliers and vendors, such as gaming equipment suppliers, food and beverage providers, and service contractors.

Lease Agreements: Examination of property leases, including terms, conditions, and any potential issues related to real estate holdings.

Employee Agreements: Review of employment contracts, benefits packages, and any union agreements to understand labor relations.

4. Litigation and Regulatory History

Assessing the litigation history of a casino is vital in identifying potential legal risks. This involves:

Pending and Past Litigation: Identification of ongoing lawsuits, arbitration, or regulatory investigations that may affect the business.

Regulatory Actions: Review of any past regulatory actions or penalties imposed by gaming authorities, as these can impact future operations and licensing.

Settlements: Examination of past legal disputes and settlements to gauge the potential for future liabilities.

5. Financial Compliance and Health

The financial standing of a casino is crucial for investors and stakeholders. Key areas of focus include:

Financial Statements: Review of audited financial statements to assess the casino’s revenue, expenses, and profitability.

Tax Compliance: Examination of tax filings and any outstanding tax obligations to identify potential liabilities.

Debt Obligations: Understanding the casino’s current debt situation, including loans and credit arrangements, to evaluate financial health.

6. Gaming Operations and Technology

The operational aspect of a casino encompasses its gaming offerings and technological infrastructure. Important components include:

Gaming Systems: Assessment of gaming management systems, including player tracking, cash handling, and compliance technology.

Game Offerings: Review of the types of games offered, including table games, slot machines, and any other gaming activities.

Security Measures: Examination of security protocols in place to protect both players and assets, including surveillance systems and loss prevention measures.

7. Intellectual Property and Branding

Intellectual property rights are essential in protecting the casino’s brand and offerings. Key areas to review include:

Trademarks: Verification of registered trademarks for the casino name, logos, and any associated branding elements.

Copyrights: Assessment of copyrights related to promotional materials, gaming software, and other proprietary content.

Licensing Agreements: Review of any licensing agreements for branded games, entertainment partnerships, or co-branding arrangements.

8. Environmental and Local Regulations

Finally, casinos must also comply with environmental and local regulations. Important considerations include:

Environmental Compliance: Assessment of compliance with environmental laws, including waste disposal, emissions, and land use regulations.

Local Ordinances: Review of any local zoning laws, building codes, or restrictions that may impact casino operations.

Conclusion

Legal due diligence in the casino business is a comprehensive process that requires a meticulous examination of various legal, financial, and operational factors. Given the complex regulatory environment, potential investors and operators must conduct thorough due diligence to mitigate risks and ensure compliance.

Engaging legal and industry professionals with expertise in the gaming sector can help navigate this intricate landscape and facilitate informed decision-making in potential investments or acquisitions.

[companyknowledgenews]

UK Tables Crypto Property Bill - Notice Today Internet https://www.merchant-business.com/uk-tables-crypto-property-bill/?feed_id=197358&_unique_id=66e32afa9c3d9 #GLOBAL - BLOGGER BLOGGER Reading Time: < 1 minuteA new bill has been introduced to classify cryptocurrencies and digital assets as personal property under UK lawThe legislation provides increased legal protection to owners and businesses handling digital assetsThe bill aims to strengthen the UK’s position as a global leader in crypto by clarifying legal frameworks around digital assetsA new bill has been introduced in the British Parliament that would classify digital assets, including cryptocurrencies, as personal property under English and Welsh law. This move, aimed at providing more legal protection to asset holders, is expected to clarify the legal status of digital assets such as Bitcoin and NFTs, while maintaining the UK’s position as a leader in the global digital economy.Business Grey Areas Cleaned UpThe Property (Digital Assets etc.) Bill will bring significant changes to the way courts handle disputes involving digital property. Previously, digital assets existed in a legal grey area, leaving owners vulnerable in the event of fraud or interference.Justice Minister Heidi Alexander emphasized the importance of this legislative move, stating, “It is essential that the law keeps pace with evolving technologies and this legislation will mean that the sector can maintain its position as a global leader in cryptoassets.”Business Move Will Aid Legal SystemThe bill is expected to boost confidence among investors and businesses while protecting individuals in cases such as divorce settlements, where digital assets might be involved. By establishing a new category of property to encompass crypto-tokens, this legislation also responds to the Law Commission’s 2023 recommendations on digital asset reforms.These changes will ensure the UK’s legal system remains modern and capable of handling the complexities introduced by digital technologies, further solidifying the country’s appeal to international investors and businesses in the rapidly growing tech sector. http://109.70.148.72/~merchant29/6network/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/cape_tm-0657fb911a.jpg Reading Time: < 1 minute A new bill has been introduced to classify cryptocurrencies and digital assets as personal property under UK law The legislation provides increased legal protection to owners and businesses handling digital assets The bill aims to strengthen the UK’s position as a global leader in crypto by clarifying legal frameworks around … Read More

[bravecompanynews]

UK Tables Crypto Property Bill - Notice Today Internet - #GLOBAL https://www.merchant-business.com/uk-tables-crypto-property-bill/?feed_id=197357&_unique_id=66e32af994bee Reading Time: < 1 minuteA new bill has been introduced to classify cryptocurrencies and digital assets as personal property under UK lawThe legislation provides increased legal protection to owners and businesses handling digital assetsThe bill aims to strengthen the UK’s position as a global leader in crypto by clarifying legal frameworks around digital assetsA new bill has been introduced in the British Parliament that would classify digital assets, including cryptocurrencies, as personal property under English and Welsh law. This move, aimed at providing more legal protection to asset holders, is expected to clarify the legal status of digital assets such as Bitcoin and NFTs, while maintaining the UK’s position as a leader in the global digital economy.Business Grey Areas Cleaned UpThe Property (Digital Assets etc.) Bill will bring significant changes to the way courts handle disputes involving digital property. Previously, digital assets existed in a legal grey area, leaving owners vulnerable in the event of fraud or interference.Justice Minister Heidi Alexander emphasized the importance of this legislative move, stating, “It is essential that the law keeps pace with evolving technologies and this legislation will mean that the sector can maintain its position as a global leader in cryptoassets.”Business Move Will Aid Legal SystemThe bill is expected to boost confidence among investors and businesses while protecting individuals in cases such as divorce settlements, where digital assets might be involved. By establishing a new category of property to encompass crypto-tokens, this legislation also responds to the Law Commission’s 2023 recommendations on digital asset reforms.These changes will ensure the UK’s legal system remains modern and capable of handling the complexities introduced by digital technologies, further solidifying the country’s appeal to international investors and businesses in the rapidly growing tech sector. http://109.70.148.72/~merchant29/6network/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/cape_tm-0657fb911a.jpg BLOGGER - #GLOBAL

[boldcompanynews]

UK Tables Crypto Property Bill - Notice Today Internet - BLOGGER https://www.merchant-business.com/uk-tables-crypto-property-bill/?feed_id=197356&_unique_id=66e32af805da6 Reading Time: < 1 minuteA new bill has been introduced to classify cryptocurrencies and digital assets as personal property under UK lawThe legislation provides increased legal protection to owners and businesses handling digital assetsThe bill aims to strengthen the UK’s position as a global leader in crypto by clarifying legal frameworks around digital assetsA new bill has been introduced in the British Parliament that would classify digital assets, including cryptocurrencies, as personal property under English and Welsh law. This move, aimed at providing more legal protection to asset holders, is expected to clarify the legal status of digital assets such as Bitcoin and NFTs, while maintaining the UK’s position as a leader in the global digital economy.Business Grey Areas Cleaned UpThe Property (Digital Assets etc.) Bill will bring significant changes to the way courts handle disputes involving digital property. Previously, digital assets existed in a legal grey area, leaving owners vulnerable in the event of fraud or interference.Justice Minister Heidi Alexander emphasized the importance of this legislative move, stating, “It is essential that the law keeps pace with evolving technologies and this legislation will mean that the sector can maintain its position as a global leader in cryptoassets.”Business Move Will Aid Legal SystemThe bill is expected to boost confidence among investors and businesses while protecting individuals in cases such as divorce settlements, where digital assets might be involved. By establishing a new category of property to encompass crypto-tokens, this legislation also responds to the Law Commission’s 2023 recommendations on digital asset reforms.These changes will ensure the UK’s legal system remains modern and capable of handling the complexities introduced by digital technologies, further solidifying the country’s appeal to international investors and businesses in the rapidly growing tech sector. http://109.70.148.72/~merchant29/6network/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/cape_tm-0657fb911a.jpg #GLOBAL - BLOGGER Reading Time:

[mariacallous]

Long a matter of political disputes, how to address climate change is increasingly becoming a legal question. Most recently, on March 29, the United Nations General Assembly voted to seek a legal opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the matter. To date, international law has offered those facing the greatest hardships from climate change few legal tools to sue polluters or receive funds to help adapt to threatening weather changes. An obscure U.N. treaty from the 1970s could potentially change all that.

The recent U.N. resolution was put forward by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and co-sponsored by more than 130 countries. Vanuatu is seeking compensation from the states most responsible for climate change for increasingly powerful cyclones that have struck the low-lying archipelago in recent years.

The U.N. resolution asks the ICJ, sometimes called the World Court, to issue an advisory opinion on states’ obligations “in respect of climate change.” Unlike the International Criminal Court, which investigates alleged crimes by individuals, the ICJ is a civil tribunal that adjudicates disputes between countries. It is the primary judicial agency mentioned in the U.N. founding charter.

The ICJ’s advisory opinions are not legally binding, but they carry legal authority and moral weight. Legal experts point out that such opinions can affect domestic courts’ judgments and provide guidance on questions of definitions, scope, or jurisdiction for international tribunals or panels, such as investor-state arbitration or trade panels at the World Trade Organization (WTO).

As climate change intensifies, activists, scholars, nongovernmental organizations, and small island states are eager for a legal strategy through which they can seek compensation for loss and damage. The obvious starting point is the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the centerpiece of the global efforts to address climate change and the organizing framework for more detailed agreements such as the 2015 Paris accords. But the UNFCCC states that any convention disputes must be settled by negotiation unless countries have committed to ICJ jurisdiction. Only two—Cuba and the Netherlands—have done so.

A little-known U.N. agreement about climate disputes could provide the ICJ jurisdiction over a much larger set of countries. In effect since 1978, the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, known as EnMod, affirms that state parties are “not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.” EnMod defines environmental modification as “the deliberate manipulation of natural processes—the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.” Weather events explicitly fall within the purview of EnMod.

To be clear: EnMod was not designed for climate change as we understand it in the 21st century. The treaty was intended to prevent countries from, for example, weaponizing rain clouds to hurt another country’s agriculture (as the United States allegedly attempted against Cuba during the Cold War). And an EnMod challenge, even within its intended framework, has never been tested at the ICJ.

Even so, legal history is replete with examples of laws and policies having unintended consequences. When the WTO was created in 1995, for instance, Washington insisted that it have a strong and legalistic dispute settlement process because U.S. officials expected the United States would win most of its cases. But the United States has frequently lost at the WTO. In each case, Washington has had to either change its policies or face higher tariffs on some exports.

EnMod’s 78 state parties comprise 70 percent of global population and have been responsible for 83 percent of carbon dioxide emissions since the onset of the treaty, based on our calculations using data from the 2022 Global Carbon Budget. Its membership includes states recognized as being major contributors to climate change—such as the United States, China, and most of Europe—as well as states self-identifying as suffering climate change damages—such as Bangladesh, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Ghana. This gives the convention a legal standing that is qualitatively different from most or all climate change agreements. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol and the 2015 Paris accords included no legal enforcement mechanisms beyond what is stipulated in the UNFCCC.

Though all EnMod member nations continue to emit greenhouse gases, some have made very deliberate efforts to curtail them. The United Kingdom, for example, has now decreased its emissions substantially below the 1990 emissions benchmark set by the Kyoto Protocol. According to our calculations, the U.K. and Canada are each responsible for about 2 percent of cumulative global emissions since 1978, but the U.K. cut its emissions by 42 percent from 1990 to 2022, while Canada increased its emissions by 19 percent over the same period. Canada’s lack of progress on emissions reductions might make it a more promising target for political and legal action by vulnerable states.

While EnMod’s text does not mention the ICJ specifically, it does state that consultation and cooperation should be handled “within the framework of the United Nations and in accordance with its Charter” and, crucially, that the “international procedures may include the services of appropriate international organizations.” As the primary judicial agency of the U.N., the ICJ would seem to qualify. Still, the treaty’s failure to explicitly designate a legal venue for resolving EnMod-related disputes means its jurisdiction remains uncertain.

Vulnerable countries seeking compensation for loss and damage, referred to as applicants, should choose their legal targets carefully. (Vanuatu is not currently a member of EnMod, so it could not use it for a legal challenge unless it joins.) The likely targets, known as respondents, would be countries that ratified EnMod and have done relatively little to lower emissions in the decades since. Canada, Australia, and the United States might be politically appealing respondents; even China, although not wealthy on a per capita basis, could come under scrutiny.

Applicants would need to establish “military or any other hostile use” of environmental modification techniques by a target country. The argument that major emitters are causing climate change for military purposes is not likely to get far because militaries are responsible for a tiny fraction of total global emissions. Climate change also doesn’t serve an obvious military purpose, such as allowing one country to conquer another.

Still, applicants could contend that continued emissions in the face of authoritative scientific evidence of climate change is tantamount to intentionally, or at least recklessly, imposing “destruction, damage or injury” on other EnMod members. This rationale is strengthened by the fact that alternative energy sources are increasingly available at commercially viable costs in the global north. In this sense, Canada has been more reckless with its emissions than the U.K.

EnMod guarantees members the right to use “environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes.” Most emissions come from civilian, not military, sources, and a respondent might argue that greenhouse gases were emitted for the peaceful purpose of economic production. But applicants could respond that while economic production itself might have a peaceful purpose, the environmental modification caused by emissions does not. On the contrary: Climate change is expected to be enormously destructive and harmful to all forms of life on Earth. The scientific community is increasingly able to attribute extreme climate events, such as cyclones or wildfires, to climate change.

The recent U.N. resolution opens the door to providing greater clarity over whether EnMod, and even the ICJ itself, could be used for climate lawsuits. The ICJ is expected to spend the next year analyzing the relevant international law and issuing an advisory opinion. The court should include the EnMod treaty within the scope of its analysis.

Even if the advisory opinion’s authors ultimately decide that EnMod does not provide the ICJ jurisdiction over climate litigation—or do not address the topic—the treaty gives state parties some political leverage they could use in the future. EnMod members still have the right to lodge a complaint with the U.N. Security Council, which has the legal authority to investigate the complaint or refer it to the ICJ.

This tactic could be useful to groups such as the Climate Vulnerable Forum of 58 countries disproportionately affected by the consequences of climate change. Its professed interest in discussing loss and damage is likely to mean that novel legal and political climate compensation strategies will emerge over the coming decade. Developing these can—and should—include revisiting and potentially repurposing arcane U.N. treaties such as EnMod.

[technologycompanynews]

UK Tables Crypto Property Bill - Notice Today Internet - BLOGGER https://www.merchant-business.com/uk-tables-crypto-property-bill/?feed_id=197355&_unique_id=66e32af72155a Reading Time: < 1 minuteA new bill has been introduced to classify cryptocurrencies and digital assets as personal property under UK lawThe legislation provides increased legal protection to owners and businesses handling digital assetsThe bill aims to strengthen the UK’s position as a global leader in crypto by clarifying legal frameworks around digital assetsA new bill has been introduced in the British Parliament that would classify digital assets, including cryptocurrencies, as personal property under English and Welsh law. This move, aimed at providing more legal protection to asset holders, is expected to clarify the legal status of digital assets such as Bitcoin and NFTs, while maintaining the UK’s position as a leader in the global digital economy.Business Grey Areas Cleaned UpThe Property (Digital Assets etc.) Bill will bring significant changes to the way courts handle disputes involving digital property. Previously, digital assets existed in a legal grey area, leaving owners vulnerable in the event of fraud or interference.Justice Minister Heidi Alexander emphasized the importance of this legislative move, stating, “It is essential that the law keeps pace with evolving technologies and this legislation will mean that the sector can maintain its position as a global leader in cryptoassets.”Business Move Will Aid Legal SystemThe bill is expected to boost confidence among investors and businesses while protecting individuals in cases such as divorce settlements, where digital assets might be involved. By establishing a new category of property to encompass crypto-tokens, this legislation also responds to the Law Commission’s 2023 recommendations on digital asset reforms.These changes will ensure the UK’s legal system remains modern and capable of handling the complexities introduced by digital technologies, further solidifying the country’s appeal to international investors and businesses in the rapidly growing tech sector. http://109.70.148.72/~merchant29/6network/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/cape_tm-0657fb911a.jpg BLOGGER - #GLOBAL Reading Time: < 1 minute A new bill has been introduced to classify cryptocurrencies and digital assets as personal property under UK law The legislation provides increased legal protection to owners and businesses handling digital assets The bill aims to strengthen the UK’s position as a global leader in crypto by clarifying legal frameworks around … Read More

[internetcompanynews]

UK Tables Crypto Property Bill - Notice Today Internet - BLOGGER https://www.merchant-business.com/uk-tables-crypto-property-bill/?feed_id=197353&_unique_id=66e329d6ee062 Reading Time: < 1 minuteA new bill has been introduced to classify cryptocurrencies and digital assets as personal property under UK lawThe legislation provides increased legal protection to owners and businesses handling digital assetsThe bill aims to strengthen the UK’s position as a global leader in crypto by clarifying legal frameworks around digital assetsA new bill has been introduced in the British Parliament that would classify digital assets, including cryptocurrencies, as personal property under English and Welsh law. This move, aimed at providing more legal protection to asset holders, is expected to clarify the legal status of digital assets such as Bitcoin and NFTs, while maintaining the UK’s position as a leader in the global digital economy.Business Grey Areas Cleaned UpThe Property (Digital Assets etc.) Bill will bring significant changes to the way courts handle disputes involving digital property. Previously, digital assets existed in a legal grey area, leaving owners vulnerable in the event of fraud or interference.Justice Minister Heidi Alexander emphasized the importance of this legislative move, stating, “It is essential that the law keeps pace with evolving technologies and this legislation will mean that the sector can maintain its position as a global leader in cryptoassets.”Business Move Will Aid Legal SystemThe bill is expected to boost confidence among investors and businesses while protecting individuals in cases such as divorce settlements, where digital assets might be involved. By establishing a new category of property to encompass crypto-tokens, this legislation also responds to the Law Commission’s 2023 recommendations on digital asset reforms.These changes will ensure the UK’s legal system remains modern and capable of handling the complexities introduced by digital technologies, further solidifying the country’s appeal to international investors and businesses in the rapidly growing tech sector. http://109.70.148.72/~merchant29/6network/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/cape_tm-0657fb911a.jpg UK Tables Crypto Property Bill - Notice Today Internet - #GLOBAL BLOGGER - #GLOBAL