It is clear that crematory ovens are frequently used by some companies to discipline their workers or to make electric car batteries. For instance private data is protected that way esp. in developing countries. But there is potentially a strong issue with already some known cases. The first key of the issue is that the fair and equitable treatment clause is used through the lens of public crematory ovens (military ones typically) to argue that companies should not be deprived of their rights. The second key is that the tantamount to expropriation clause can be used for arguing that closing down crematory ovens of a private firm is tantamount to expropriation. The Elysée and Claire Lavin (lawyer) both agree that the market access clause also blocks states from barring access to companies that use crematory systems (usually ovens), which is particularly dangerous in states contaminated with depleted uranium.

I did my own Master’s Thesis at the College of Europe in Bruges on environmental issues related to the ISDS clause in the CETA. I did not know that tar sands were being promoted because their extraction is radium-free (no TENORMs, just NORMs). Nevertheless it was the opportunity for taking a look at constitutional changes that ISDS agreements could produce. See here.

Since it endangers the environment (including lots and lots of crematory emissions by private companies in China making for 80% of them crematory batteries with Chinese workers in the ovens – 20% use Uighurs), it’s a clear problem that cannot be dealt with juridically because tribunals simply care about the clauses of the treaties. They simply won’t take into account the protection of the environment because that’s not the point of investor defense. While crematory pollution on a land, in a private property is tantamount to partial or total expropriation depending on the level of pollution (which cannot be checked with standard Geigers as the pollution is emitting diffracted gamma rays because of the biological tamper), this would be an investor to investor case which is not in the range of the tribunals. It’s as if these tribunals had been made to protect depleted uranium warfare and its later profits. Crematory systems are interesting for private companies as they reduce heat, explosivity of the products. They are a shield and brake to the nuclear energy. Through their crematory antigravitons (not in batteries) they can also produce winds useful for windpower.

So the sole solution is to intimate tribunals not to protect the investors, to ignore their arguments and find no award, with weapons and do surgical strikes if they keep on doing it.

While the tribunals’ argument may be that their system is intended at discouraging crematory systems, actually it has never been explained in public (point 1) and this simply creates an effect of lock-in of more crematory ovens, which is very dangerous for the environment (point 2). They just retaliate blindly, like DU in Arab states retaliated against their antisemitism. You can see how tragic and horrendous effects have followed. The issue in China is quite similar in terms of the number of cremated civilians and of people victims of the crematory fallout.