As perhaps one of his last truly significant actions while in office, President Barack Obama would very much like Congress to pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement, which officials and multinational corporate representatives have been working on since 2008. The agreement would cover the United States, Australia, Japan and nine other Pacific Rim countries.

The U.S. negotiations are being handled by the office of the U.S. Trade Representative, (USTR) which explains the goals of the TPP on its website, ustr.gov. The TTP will offer “procedures for arbitration that will provide basic rule of law protections for U.S. investors operating in foreign markets similar to those the U.S. already provides to foreign investors operating in the U.S.... to ensure that all TPP governments can appropriately regulate in the public interest, including on health, safety and environmental protection.”

The mechanism for this arbitration is referred to as “investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS),” also sometimes called “corporate tribunals.” As benign as the USTR may make it sound, it has been used by corporations to sue countries, or states, for enacting rules or laws that are clearly in the public interest.

A story on the Daily KOS website (tinyurl.com/mt2l59u) reports that the cigarette maker Phillip Morris is suing the Australian government through an ISDS process because the government has required that cigarettes now sold in the country be contained in plain packaging. This was done because research shows that plainly packaged cigarettes are less likely to attract new, younger smokers. But because the move is going to harm the future profits of Phillip Morris, it is using this unique legal device to try to extract money from the Australian people.

The story also says that under ISDS clauses, Germany was sued by a Swiss utility after closing two nuclear power plants there, and Quebec was sued by a drilling company after passing a hydraulic fracturing moratorium there.

ISDS clauses are parts of many trade agreements, but their use has exploded over the past couple of decades. We can’t know for sure, because the language of the TPP remains secret, but the agreement could significantly expand the possibility of this kind of lawsuit, which is typically worked out by lawyers outside of the legal system of the country or state involved.

It is therefore easy to see how, under the right set of circumstances, a drilling company located in, say, Canada, could sue New York State for its recently announced fracking ban.

This is just one of many problems critics have with TPP, and with Obama’s effort to get fast-track authority for it, which would mean Congress would be presented with the legislation on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, with no opportunity to offer amendments.

Another criticism is that it has been negotiated in almost entirely in secret, without even members of Congress being able to see copies of all 20 chapters. Supposedly, the secrecy is necessary to persuade other countries to negotiate; but critics say that allowing corporate interests to be involved in the negotiating process, but not allowing consumer or environmental advocates, produces an unbalanced result.

What the public does know about TPP is thanks in part to documents provided by WikiLeaks. One of the big areas of dispute is how the agreement treats the environment. When the environmental chapter of the agreement was leaked earlier this year, environmental groups responded negatively, saying the environmental rules were not enforceable as they should be.

Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said, “This draft chapter falls flat on every single one of our issues—oceans, fish, wildlife and forest protections—and, in fact, rolls back the progress made in past free trade pacts.”

A press release from environmental groups said, “Since a bipartisan consensus on trade was reached in May 2007 between Congress and the Bush Administration, the environment chapters of all U.S. free trade agreements have been legally enforceable and included a list of environmental treaties that countries committed to uphold. Today’s leaked text does not meet the standard set by Congress.”

It is also argued that the agreement is bad for workers. Proponents argue that the TTP will be used to protect fundamental labor rights and ensure acceptable conditions of work including wages, hours and occupational safety. But former U.S. labor secretary Robert Reich sees it differently. He said, “The TPP is going to undermine all sorts of labor protections as well as consumer and environmental protections. It’s going to enlarge intellectual property rights and thereby increase prices for many consumers, and it’s going to further the race to the bottom in all sorts of respects. All the TPP does is give large global companies, some of them headquartered in the United States, more power.”

Because the agreement has been negotiated in secret, it’s hard to say for sure what’s in it, and for that reason alone it should not be considered for passage until Congress, citizens and their advocates have a chance to read it and provide input.