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.
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.