A seabed mining company is using NAFTA to prevent Mexico from protecting seabed ecosystems in the Gulf of California. NAFTA is a business-supremacy treaty and it contains an ISDS clause.

Businesses can use those against any government. I call them "I Sue Democratic States" clauses because democratic states sometimes heed popular demand to make regulations to stop business operations from doing massive damage. This damage can be enormous -- it can include global heating disaster, which may result in the collapse of civilization -- so preventing it justifies war.

One of the few good things that the wrecker did as president, one of the few cases in which he did what he said he would do, was replacing NAFTA with a new version, which ISTR eliminated the ISDS clause. I wonder, didn't that treaty eliminate this case? If not, why not?

Could a further revision of NAFTA succeed in abolishing all the existing cases under that one treaty?