@scottlincicome Absolutely. It assumes the risks that should be left to businesses. Let's ditch investor state dispute mechanism
-
-
En réponse à @scottlincicome
@scottlincicome investment is inherently risky, Scott. foreign investment even more so. What's the special case here? Talk later.2 réponses 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @dikenson
@dikenson@scottlincicome Investor protections are pro-business (like you), but not pro-market (like me). Plain and simple.2 réponses 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @scottlincicome
@scottlincicome@snlester Then the onus is on you to explain why foreign investors need to be subsidized.3 réponses 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @scottlincicome
@scottlincicome@dikenson The WTO IP rules come close. If the rules represent bad policy, and only exist due to business demands, then yes.1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @scottlincicome
@scottlincicome@dikenson On procedure, notice that WTO DS does not have "trader-state" disputes.3 réponses 0 Retweet 0 j'aime
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.
RTS. You didn't read the article, did you?