A version of the treaty text “subject to legal review” was published by potential contracting parties on 5 November 2015. [82] Parts of the draft comprehensive agreements have been disclosed to the public in advance. [83] Many of the provisions contained in the leaked documents are imbued with previous trade agreements. [Citation required] Before that happened, President Donald Trump signed an executive order on January 23, 2017 to withdraw the United States from the agreement. In 2013, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz warned that it would “serve the interests of the richest” based on the drafts of the TPP. [155] [156] The work organized in the United States argued during the negotiations that the trade agreement would primarily benefit businesses at the expense of manufacturing and service workers. [157] The Economic Policy Institute and the Center for Economic and Policy Research argued that the TPP could lead to job losses and lower wages. [158] [159] On the economic side of the equation, the Obama administration and many trade economists argued that lower tariffs and improved market access to the agreement had lowered consumer prices, stimulated cross-border investment and boosted U.S. exports. More coherent rules and market-oriented reforms in developing countries such as Vietnam and Malaysia would make all affected economies more efficient and improve productivity and growth. Some Democrats agreed, at least in part, on this prognosis, including presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, although Clinton, during her tenure as secretary of state, joined the TPP as an important part of Obama`s shift to Asia. Many members of the U.S. labour movement have also fought and argued that trade agreements such as the TPP undermine wages and reduce environmental and labour standards.

They say that such an agreement could repeat the experience of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between Canada, Mexico and the United States, which they accuse of losing jobs in the processing industry. In 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton outlined the strategic reasons for a trade agreement on Asia. The Office of the United States Trade Representative challenges the idea that ISDS “challenges the sovereign capacity of governments to impose any measures they wish to protect to protect workers` rights, the environment or other matters of public interest.” [131] The International Bar Association (IBA) echoes this view and notes that “while investment contracts restrict the ability of states to impose arbitrary or discriminatory treatment, they do not restrict (and, in fact, expressly protect) a state`s sovereign right to regulate in the public interest in a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory manner.” [132] The White House notes that investment protection is an integral part of more than 3,000 trade agreements, the vast majority of which have some form of neutral arbitration. [143] The United States participates in at least 50 such agreements, has experienced only 13 isDS cases and has never lost a case of ISDS. [143] The White House asserts that the components of the TPP ISDR are an improvement and improvement over ISDS in other trade agreements: the TPP makes it clear that governments can regulate in the public interest (including health, safety and the environment); The TPP provides for the ability to promptly dismiss reckless claims and to grant rights against the applicant in order to discourage such actions; Fictitious companies are prevented from accessing investment protection measures; and arbitration procedures under the TPP are publicly available and allow non-parties to lodge appeals. [143] Emily J.