International Water Justice community sent the petition to the Supreme Court of Indonesia. Residents of Jakarta filed a citizen lawsuit against water privatisation in Jakarta at Central Jakarta District Court in November 2012. They argued in the lawsuit that water privatisation failed to fulfil the residents’ access to safe water, caused a series of corruptions and financial harm to the public budgets. In March 2015, the court ruled in favour of the residents, annulling the contract agreement with two private water operators. It was a significant victory of people. The decision, however, was challenged by these private companies and other defendants. Unfortunately the residents lost in the High Court in February 2016. Jakarta people decided to challenge the High Court ruling at the Supreme Court.
We welcome you to participate in the training weekend ‘Food Sovereignty in Practice’, an inspiring exchange of alternatives to our current food system. It will take place on the organic farm Buitenverwachting near Leiden and is meant for both students, practitioners and (prospective) farmers who are interested in movement building and deepening their knowledge of food sovereignty, agroecology, urban food systems and the human right to food.
Alors que des législatures adoptent des réformes établissant l’accès légal au cannabis pour des fins autres qu’exclusivement « médicales et scientifiques », les tensions entourant les traités actuels des Nations Unies en matière de drogues et l’évolution des lois et pratiques des États membres continuent de s’intensifier. Comment les gouvernements et les systèmes onusiens pourraient-ils aborder ces tensions croissantes par des moyens qui reconnaissent les changements de politiques en cours et qui aident à moderniser le régime des traités sur les drogues, à proprement parler, et par le fait même à renforcer les piliers onusiens des droits humains, du développement, de la paix et de la sécurité ainsi que de la primauté du droit?
El Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO) y el Transnational Institute (TNI), con el apoyo del Instituto de Estudios de América Latina y el Caribe (IEALC), convocan a presentar propuestas de investigación comprometida dirigidas a sistematizar el trabajo de movimientos populares en torno a las disputas por lo público en la región.
Cecilia Olivet, Jaybee Garganera, Farah Sevilla, Joseph Purugganan
24 May 2016
Mining firms have been one of the main corporate sectors worldwide to take advantage of investor-state dispute mechanisms to sue states for regulation of mining, having sued governments for a total of USD 53 billion so far. The Philippines, one of five countries worldwide with the highest overall mineral reserves, has a web of investment treaties which severely constrain the government's ability to regulate or close polluting mines. This legal straitjacket will become even tighter if the EU–Philippines Free Trade Agreement and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) proceed.
Con motivo de la publicación en castellano del informe Estado del poder 2016, Transnational Institute y FUHEM Ecosocial invitan al coloquio: “¿Quién manda aquí? Poder económico y resistencias globales”.
El Transnational Institute se complace en presentar el primer número de Dínamo, una síntesis mensual y bilingüe (inglés y español) de debates y nuevas ideas sobre política y economía internacional. Dínamo es una iniciativa conjunta de la diaria (un periódico uruguayo publicado por una cooperativa de periodistas y trabajadores de la prensa) y un colectivo de investigadores-activistas de América Latina.
The Transnational Institute proudly presents the first issue of Dynamo, a monthly and bilingual (English and Spanish) review of current debates and new ideas on international politics and economics. Dynamo is jointly published by TNI, la diaria (a Uruguayan newspaper run by a cooperative of journalists and media workers) and a collective of Latin American scholar-activists.
Researchers and activists from fifteen countries met in Amsterdam with the aim to jointly draft the research agenda of the New Politics Project, a decentralised think tank on counter-hegemonic politics. It will aim to boost the development of desirable, viable and achievable alternatives, transcending current oppressive and exploitative structures; acknowledge the diversity of knowledge as a source of inspiration for the co-creation of alternatives; and promote fruitful collaboration and exchanges among researchers and activists from different regions of the world.
Representatives of the governments of Austria, France, Finland, Germany and the Netherlands (AFFGN) tabled a proposal, in April, to establish “a multilateral agreement among the [EU] Member States […] which would replace and supersede pre-existing intra-EU BITs”. With this proposal, all EU investors would effectively be able to sue any member state at an international tribunal when they feel government regulations have undermined their (future) profits. This proposal undercuts the very basis of the European Union and is the best example of how the EU has become a vehicle for business rights at the expense of democracy.
How are people across the world taking back power over the energy sector, kicking-back against the rule of the market and reimagining how energy might be produced, distributed and used? How can the concept of energy democracy be deployed to demand a socially just energy system, with universal access, fair prices and secure, unionised and well-paid jobs? This report summarises the discussions and outcomes from an international workshop on energy democracy held in Amsterdam in February 2016.
In an astonishing move which ignores the opinion of millions of citizens who oppose ISDS, the governments of Austria, France, Finland, Germany and the Netherlands (AFFGN) have made a sly attempt to institutionalise ISDS throughout the European Union. According to a leaked non-paper, on the 7th April representatives of these five nations made a proposal to the EU Council’s Trade Policy Committee which would in effect create a plurilateral treaty based on foreign investment protection within the EU. A move which was suspiciously followed by publication of a similar proposal on Business Europe’s website in what appears to have been a coordinated action.