![\"images\"](\"http:\/\/www.globalresearch.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/images.jpeg\" "\\"images\\"")
<\/div>\nAlfred de Zayas<\/a>, the U.N.\u2019s\u00a0Independent Expert\u00a0on the Promotion of\u00a0a Democratic and\u00a0Equitable\u00a0International Order<\/a>, is assigned the task to apply the standards of international law to proposed treaties, to determine whether they\u2019re in accord with international law. On Friday, June 24th, he\u00a0issued his finding<\/a>\u00a0on three large proposed treaties regarding international trade among Atlantic countries: TTIP, TISA, and CETA. Earlier, on February 2nd, he had issued a similar finding on\u00a0the proposed TPP treaty between Pacific countries<\/a>, and his conclusion there was the same: that the proposed treaty violates international laws, and is inconsistent with democracy.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n His finding regarding the proposed Atlantic treaties condemned them by saying: \u201cTrade deals prepared and negotiated in secret, excluding key\u00a0stakeholders such as labour unions, consumer associations, health\u00a0professionals and environmental experts and now parliaments, have\u00a0zero democratic legitimacy.\u201d This describes all of U.S. President Barack Obama\u2019s proposed treaties on trade: TPP, TTIP, and TISA, and it also includes CETA, which is the proposed treaty between the EU and Canada.<\/p>\n He further damningly noted that, \u201cDisfranchising the public from participating in this important debate is\u00a0undemocratic and manifests a profound disregard to peoples\u2019 voice.\u201d<\/p>\n The U.N.\u2019s\u00a0press release<\/a>, on June 24th, from its\u00a0Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights<\/a>\u00a0(OHCHR), especially notes:<\/p>\n An earlier consultation conducted by the European Commission in\u00a02014 resulted in 97% of respondents from across Europe\u00a0expressing opposition to the inclusion of asymmetrical investment\u00a0protection in Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)\u00a0with the USA. \u201cThe same would apply to CETA, but no consultation\u00a0was ever held,\u201d he noted.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u201cAsymmetrical investment protection\u201d refers to the power that these proposed treaties grant to international corporations to sue (for alleged loss of their profits) nations that increase regulations to protect the safety of the public from toxic products, and from environmental harms, and that protect workers\u2019 rights and other human rights that can also, in some circumstances, reduce corporate profits. \u201cAsymmetrical\u201d refers to the absence in the proposed treaty of any symmetrical power granted to a government to sue an international corporation that violates its laws to protect the public.<\/p>\n De Zayas goes further than merely charging that these treaties are \u201casymmetrical\u201d: he adds that, \u201cIn case of conflict between trade agreements and human rights treaties, it is the latter that prevail.\u00a0States must not enter into agreements that delay, circumvent, hinder or make impossible the fulfillment of human\u00a0rights treaty obligations.\u201d<\/p>\n In\u00a0a statement to the Council of Europe, on April 19th<\/a>, de Zayas had said: \u201cTwo ontologies seem to have been lost in the ideologically-driven corporate narrative. Firstly, the ontology of the State, its\u00a0raison d\u2019\u00eatre<\/em>\u00a0to legislate in the public interest, including preventative measures to avert potential harm to the population. Secondly, the ontology of business, which is to take calculated risks for profit.\u201d He meant there that these proposed treaties, which would enable the latter to override the former \u2014 enable international investors to\u00a0override national sovereignty of democratic nations, and which would impose their own system of \u2018arbitration\u2019 that isn\u2019t required to adhere to any nation\u2019s laws and constitution<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 violate international law.<\/p>\n The U.N. OHCHR\u2019s June 24th press release concludes by saying:<\/p>\n \u201cTrade agreements should be ratified only after human rights,\u00a0health and environmental impact assessments have been\u00a0conducted, which has not been the case with regard to CETA and\u00a0TTIP,\u201d Mr. de Zayas said.<\/p>\n \u201cRatification of CETA and TTIP would start a \u2018race to the bottom\u2019 in\u00a0human rights terms, and would seriously compromise the regulatory\u00a0space of states. This is contrary to the Purposes and Principles of\u00a0the UN Charter, and would constitute a serious obstacle to\u00a0achieving a democratic and equitable international order,\u201d the UN\u00a0Independent Expert concluded.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The statements by the U.N.\u2019s\u00a0Independent Expert\u00a0on the Promotion of\u00a0a Democratic and\u00a0Equitable\u00a0International Order are damning against these proposed treaties. As the U.N.\u2019s appointed independent legal counsel regarding these treaties, he is saying that, regardless of whether they will become law in any particular country, they are in clear violation of international law.<\/p>\n Investigative historian Eric Zuesse<\/strong> is the author, most recently, of\u00a0\u00a0They\u2019re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010<\/a>,\u00a0and of\u00a0\u00a0CHRIST\u2019S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n