... so the intent is to stop the people of economically poor but resource rich countries from having a say in whether or not they continue to have their natural resources exploited by wealthy foreigners?
That doesn't sound positive to me at all.
That should be built into the business model, that risk.
Now, I'm a lot more worried about the environmental record of those oil companies, but let's not fool ourselves that they snuck in and set up drilling rigs and refineries without permission.
Permission from whom?
What an incredibly naive world view.
Or, in South America, invited by the previous government, which was often an America-installed despot.
Tell that to the people of iraq.
I was heartily against the invasion of Iraq, but trying to equate the two is just bullshit. This is a great example of why our politics are so dysfunctional - people just trading zingers instead of making the slightest attempt to be factual.
Think it doesn't happen? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M42ATZXmIKw
My basic point is not that corporate investments are necessarily fairly run or favorable to poor people in a developing country. They're not, and if you read my posts here regularly you'll see I'm actually quite skeptical of corporate governance and market idealism.
On the other hand, one has to recognize that it takes two to tango; corporations buy things like mineral exploitation rights from governments, and ultimately the government of a nation has to be responsive to its population, notwithstanding the fact that many governments are despotic. This being the case, it behooves new governments reviewing unfavorable deals to renegotiate terms like royalty rates or lease terms (both of which happen all the time), whereas unilateral expropriation should be a last resort because it signals to any and all investors that the country in question is an unreliable place to invest, so you scare away ethical investors as well as greedy ones.