ISDS cannot ask governments to overturn local laws (unlike the World Trade Organization) that violate trade agreements, but can award financial damages to investors who are affected by such laws.  As the Office of the United States Trade Representative has pointed out, ISDS requires specific violations and does not allow companies to file “lost profits” claims.  In 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton outlined the strategic motivation for an Asia-focused trade deal. For arguments that the TPP is successful in liberalizing trade between participating nations, the question arises as to whether or not this results in a net positive or negative change. Some scientists argue that participatory members of the TPP believe that such membership is a utilitarian and practical method for the new trade liberalization.  Scientists Peter Petri and Michael Plummer describe the TPP as a “dynamic process – and an example of competitive liberalization,” and this described liberalization may lead to a new mode of governance for the Asia-Pacific region and transnational trade.  However, Professor Marc L. Busch of Georgetown University and Professor Krzysztof J. Pelc of McGill University find that modern trade agreements are long and complex because, in addition to tariffs, they often fight against non-tariff barriers such as different standards and regulations. Due to the steady decline in tariff barriers since World War II, it became increasingly likely that countries would erect trade barriers in the form of non-tariff barriers. . .