I think a strong nation is good for consumers, and a weak nation destroys the consumer base.
Have there been many trade agreements that were drafted by corporations instead of government representatives?
Pretty much all major trade agreements of the modern era have been largely drafted by corporate lobbyists, so, I guess "yes" is the answer you are looking for.
Why do you ask?
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-set...
This is just flat-out false. The second link you provided clearly lays out the criteria for resolution of a conflict via the ISDS:
> the dispute settlement provisions of this Chapter shall apply...wherever a Party considers that an actualor proposed measure of another Party is or would be inconsistent with the obligations of this Agreement or that another Party has otherwise failed to carry out its obligations under this Agreement; or wherever a Party considers thata benefit it could reasonably have expected to accrue to it under [this agreement] is being nullified or impaired as a result of the application of a measure of another Party that is not inconsistent with this Agreement.
That is, the ISDS is for resolution of conflicts which are alleged to be in violation the the treaty, not for "any measures that they can claim hurts their business". The Phillip-Morris case you cite is because PM alleges that the Australian government expropriated their intellectual property without due compensation. This post[0] has a very nice breakdown of ISDS cases, rationale, and outcomes.
Also give this thread[1] a read - SavannaJeff is a well-known professional trade economist, and has a lot of very valuable expert insight on the TPP that's worth reading.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/390p5l/over_2000000...
[1] https://np.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/2srn0u/trade_sec...
And I admit that I still have trouble seeing the plaintiffs in these cases as any kind of victims. The first of your links states that companies can use the mere existence of an ISDS mechanism to produce a real "chilling effect" on countries not even part of the dispute. Is that "fair" to the people of those countries?
But okay, there are two sides. And we know which side the "sensationalist media" is on. And also the people of Europe, who (according to your second link) drove the EU to qualify and then scuttle ISDS language in the TTIP after "a lengthy public consultative process."
So I come away wondering what is the value proposition for the public. Or is this provision all carrot?
ISDS is in the treaty to encourage foreign direct investment in developing nations, which often do not have well-functioning, independent and fair courts the way the U.S. does.
