A former ­legal adviser to the State Department most sharply pointed out the lopsidedness of the convention. He wondered ­whether the proposition was not “to secure a commitment from a country that it must be prepared to take food from the mouth of its ­people in order to pay compensation in foreign exchange for property taken in exercise of its eminent domain power.” He asked if this would amount to “an effort to erect ‘property rights’ over the ‘­human right’ to eat.”

Quinn Slobodian, Globalists, loc. 469