In February 2016, Alfred de Zayas, a UN human rights expert, argued that the TPP was fundamentally flawed and based on an outdated model of trade pacts and that governments should not sign or ratify the TPP.  According to Mr. de Zayas, the international human rights regime imposes binding legal obligations on countries, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and trade must be governed by the human rights regime. Under ISDS at the TPP, investors can sue a government, while a government cannot sue investors. De Zayas argued that this asymmetry made the system unfair. He added that international law, including accountability and transparency, must prevail over trade pacts. The NAFTA structure is expected to increase cross-border trade in North America and stimulate economic growth for stakeholders. Let‘s start with a quick look at these two topics. Nafta has been structured to increase cross-border trade in North America and stimulate economic growth for each party. ECIPE said in 2014 that the TPP would be “the first” competing economic integration large enough to have a significant negative impact on Europe. In the long term, the negative effects of investment, productivity and competitiveness will result from dynamic effects such as.
B investment, productivity and competitiveness.  Pascal Lamy called the TPP “the last of the great old-style trade agreements.” 2 In May 2015, U.S. Congressman Sander Levin argued that it was difficult to impose trade agreements because he questioned Vietnam‘s willingness to comply with TPP labour standards.  According to a report by U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren, there is a significant gap between the labour standards of previous U.S. free trade agreements and the effective application of those rules.  However, PIIE analysts note that studies show that the presence of “sticks” (possible suspension of trade benefits) and “carrots” (technical assistance) in trade agreements increases the likelihood that work commitments in trade agreements will have a positive effect; there are sticks as well as carrots in the TPP.  According to the International Bar Association (IBA), states have earned a higher percentage of ISDS cases than investors, and about one-third of all cases end in resolution.
 If successful, eligible investors will recover on average less than half of the amounts requested.  The IBA notes that “only 8 per cent of ISDS procedures are undertaken by very large multinationals.”  The IBA challenges the idea that ISDS is biased towards developing countries and finds that there is “no correlation between the success rates of rights against states and their level of income or development status”.  The IBA notes that ISDS is also necessary in countries where national legal systems are sophisticated, as these national jurisdictions govern under national law and not international law.  The IBA notes that “attributions increasingly require the payment of arbitration and legal fees to the winning party,” which prevents investors from engaging in immutable business.  However, while Mexico “strikes us economically” in the trade sense, imports were not the only ones responsible for the real growth of merchandise trade from 1993 to 2016 of 264%.