In theory, you might be right. In practice it is absolute different. Those courts where mostly installed in the past to protect the interests of bigger countries against smaller countries. Of course, in some cases it was necessary, but in practice it was used to protect the interests of big corporations against the smaller countries. And that is the reason, we got such frivolous acting of corporations. They just knew, that the courts acted on their side.
An exception in direction "health/safety" will not help either, since bad countries will label everything "health/safety" further on and the other way around there are still enough possibilities for frivolous movements of corporations.
> Full transparency in cases. Governments must make all pleadings, briefs, transcripts, decisions, and awards in ISDS cases publicly available, as well as open ISDS hearings to the public. One key objective of these provisions is to allow governments that are party to the agreement, as well as the public at large, to carefully monitor pending proceedings and more effectively make decisions about whether to intervene.
> Public participation in cases. Tribunals have the clear authority to accept amicus curiae submissions. In U.S. cases, amicus briefs have been submitted by a variety of NGOs, including the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and Center for International Environmental Law. (Documents in all investor-State cases filed against the United States are available on the State Department website.)
But of course it invalidates my argument, when I don't believe the "official" statements. I see it in my country: The official statements are always true and everybody else a liar. It is written in the Prawda.
An exception in direction "health/safety" will not help either, since bad countries will label everything "health/safety" further on and the other way around there are still enough possibilities for frivolous movements of corporations.
Secret courts will never be the solution!