[darawk]

> you would be surprised as to how many people would assume that they would still be able to hold a corporation to account if they completely make a country unlivable and kill citizens. these treaties are morally wrong and make it legal for corporations to destroy the habitibility of a piece of land and kill its inhabitants if it is profitable to them

I'm not aware of any provisions in these treaties that permit killing.

[ptah]

The pollution was deadly:

"An estimated 18 billion gallons of produced water has been diverted into some 880 unlined open pits, causing severe contamination of streams and rivers relied on by local inhabitants for their drinking water, bathing and fishing. Moreover, 650,000 barrels of crude oil have been spilled directly in the jungles and pathways.[14][15][19] The produced water contained polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons at levels many times higher than permitted in the US, where produced water was typically re-injected underground since at least the 1970s.[14] Given the magnitude of the contamination and its lasting impact many environmentalists claim it is the worst oil-related disaster in the world, the amount of crude and toxic waste dumped by Texaco allegedly being 30 times the one spilled in the Exxon Valdez oil spill."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lago_Agrio_oil_field#Pollution

[ptah]

governments are not allowed to do anything that lowers corporate profits under these treaties. in this specific case the pollution was deadly and yet the treaty protects chevron's interest over those of the citizens and endangers lives

[PeterisP]

Well, the national government representing these citizens intentionally chose that attracting investment (which presumably helps their citizens in the long run) is more important to their country than protecting the health of their population, and as the sovereign, they can make that choice on behalf of their citizens. It may be a stupid or misguided or evil choice, but that's their choice to make.

Also, for many third world countries it does seem quite clear that simply setting the labor law and environmental law protections equal to first world standards would be a stupid policy harmful to their citizens; simple poverty kills and harms much more people in a much more direct way, and becoming a place for outsourcing is a net benefit to their population in the end; proper protection is a luxury that their society can't (yet) afford because they have to fulfil their core needs first even if that costs some lives due to pollution or exploitative labor. At some point they'll want to toughen up these restrictions (as China is doing now), but it's not because the lax restrictions were wrong or a regrettable mistake, it's only because the conditions have changed, they're richer, and now they can afford to be more picky about these issues. It's a tough choice to make this balance well, but it's not something that someone else can decide for them, the national governments are the ones that should be making this choice - unless they're totalitarian dictatorships, in which case the people should be given the say, but they won't without a potentially bloody coup.

[ptah]

these treaties are boilerplate take it or leave it. third world countries mostly don't have the option to vary these terms

[PeterisP]

But they are free to refuse that treaty if they feel that it does not (in aggregate) benefit their nation.