I am also very concerned about the implications of ISDS for democracies. However I would not argue that TTIP should be abolished entirely because of it. Studies expect an annual increase in GDP growth of about half a percent - which doesn't seem like much considering the historical GDP growth, but GDP growth is expected to be much weaker in the western hemisphere than in the past - so we shouldn't outright dismiss half a percent as too little.
Furthermore, as mentioned by other commentators, ISDS is already a part of many treaties. However one fundamental flaw - which is a part of many of the previous treaties involving ISDS - was that the conditions required for allowing corporations to sue governments were very loosely defined: The treaties usually allow corporations to sue governments if any kind of "indirect expropriation" occurs - From a paper on CETA: "Indirect expropriation can only occur when the investor is substantially deprived of the fundamental attributes of property such as the right to use, enjoy and dispose of its investment; " (1)
This clause allows corporations to sue against a very broad range of policy measures. The TTIP supposedly contains a more detailed outline under what circumstances corporations can sue (2):
• We have reaffirmed the right to regulate. In CETA we have made clear in the preamble of the agreement that the EU and Canada preserve their right to regulate and to achieve legitimate policy objectives, such as public health, safety, environment, public morals and the promotion and protection of cultural diversity.
• We have defined key concepts like “fair and equitable treatment” and “indirect expropriation”, in order to prevent abuse. For the first time, CETA provides a definition of these terms. "Fair and equitable treatment" is defined through a clear, closed text which defines precisely the content of the standard without leaving unwelcome discretion to arbitrators. Moreover, detailed language has been agreed upon to clarify what constitutes indirect expropriation, particularly excluding claims against legitimate public policy measures.
As it so often happens during negotiations, the fundamental decisions are made when definitions are being defined. Only if the policy makers in the US and EU can agree on a very specific definition of "indirect expropriation" that is not vulnerable to abuses by corporate lawyers, then we can hope for a good long term outcome for the consumer. And if these requirements are enforced in the arbitration courts, then the ISDS in my opinion becomes a much more sensible part of the treaty. However due to the secrecy involved in the current negotiations, I don't know which exact definitions are currently part of the treaty.
(1) http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/november/tradoc_1...
(2) http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/may/tradoc_153408...