Yes, a small part of the risk. And I'd argue that small part shouldn't have been there in the first place.
So corporations shouln't front even the smallest risk? That makes no sense.
Sure, though I'd say there's a lot less risk for exploitation than you would.
Agreed.
The point of ISDS is to discourage disadvantages towards foreign multinationals.
Despite the fact multinational corporations are among the most powerful institutions in the world, you seem to think that these entities need to acquire more rights, above and beyond those established by governments for their own people. I find this bizarre. You must work for a multinational or something. Is that true?
A corporation doesn't, and shouldn't, lose legal protections just because they make a lot of money.
Lose legal protections? What? Since when is loss of profit due to established laws and regulations 'losing' a right?
Under this process, foreign companies can challenge any new law or government action at the federal, state, or local level, in a country that is a signatory to the agreement. Companies can file such lawsuits based upon their claim that the law or action harms their present or future profits. If they win, there are no monetary limits to the potential award.
Who else has this right?
More like, "Corporations' right to equal protection under the laws (and investors) are more important than politicians' whims and wishes.
Again, who has these protections that make corporations unequal?
By the way I looked into the tribunals that make arbitration in TPP and they are made up of three private sector lawyers, allow unlimited monetary penalties and are not subject to appeal. Here is a little tidbit for you:
These investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) tribunals are designed to overrule the national court systems. ISDS tribunals introduce a mechanism by which multinational corporations can force governments to pay compensation if the tribunal states that a country's laws or policies affect the company's claimed future profits. In return, states hope that multinationals will invest more. Similar mechanisms have already been used. For example, US tobacco company Phillip Morris used one such tribunal to sue Australia (June 2011 – ongoing) for mandating plain packaging of tobacco products on public health grounds; and by the oil giant Chevron against Ecuador in an attempt to evade a multi-billion-dollar compensation ruling for polluting the environment. The threat of future lawsuits chilled environmental and other legislation in Canada after it was sued by pesticide companies in 2008/9. ISDS tribunals are often held in secret, have no appeal mechanism, do not subordinate themselves to human rights laws or the public interest, and have few means by which other affected parties can make representations.