[celticninja]

it would fail on the public good criteria, that is the law is aimed at improving recycling rates not harming companies bottom line. If there was some protectionism going on it would be different. It should have the effect of making companies improve repairability (is that a word?) to make themselves more attractive to buyers.

[ab5tract]

I'm sorry, but how do you develop a worldview where "public good" is determined via corporate lawsuits? Is it simply in the intention of the law? Because from what I can see of the history of ISDS, harming a companies bottom line is the exact criteria by which these cases are judged. Outside of the tobacco labelling suit, I am hard pressed to find a case where ISDS did not result in a ruling against a government.

[celticninja]

It's in the law.

[ab5tract]

Which law are you referring to? This law contains, in plain language, assertions that laws enacted to encourage repair are considered "public good"? I'll believe it when you post a link.

What if there was a large company, RomeRepairCo, already operating in Sweden? Wouldn't they then have a claim to some form of protectionist angle to this law?

Do you see where I am going with this? You say "it is in the law", yet you are neglecting the fact that court cases hinge on the interpretation of law.

Why are laws designed to nationalize (ahem) national resources not qualifying as "for the public good"? When do governments enact any law that is not (ostensibly, at least) "for the public good"?

The history of ISDS law shows that the validity of "for the public good" is determined by these corporate courts^Wroom of corporate lawyers and according to their own corporate interpretation. This is why the outcomes they have so far produced run so contrary to any non-libertarian interpretation of a moral society.