scholarly journals Understanding NAFTA’s ISDS: A Challenge for Mexican Attorneys

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (20) ◽  
pp. 89
Author(s):  
Rosa Haydee Castro Peña
Keyword(s):  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Practical Experience ◽  
Historical Record ◽  
The Other ◽  
Foreign Investors ◽  
The North ◽  
20Th Anniversary

In the context of the 20th anniversary of the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), this article will analyze its Chapter XI: Investor- State Dispute Settlement. Chapter XI embodies the investor’s real and practical experience under NAFTA rules. An examination of the historical record demonstrates that Mexican lawyers have been passive participants in defending investors’ rights. On the other side of the coin, Mexican investors have not been active participants in NAFTA’s Chapter XI, in contrast to Canadian and US investors. Finally, Mexico’s experience in international arbitration has not always been negative, but Mexico has been criticized for a lack of transparency and due process for foreign investors.

Investor-State Arbitration under NAFTA Chapter 11

2000 ◽  
Vol 37 ◽  
pp. 99-137
Author(s):  
J. C. Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The Other ◽  
Foreign Investors ◽  
The North ◽  
Legislative Activity ◽  
Nafta Chapter 11 ◽  
Extraordinary Means

SummaryChapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) provides for suits by foreign investors from the NAFTA Parties against one of the other Parties. The author reviews this provision and discusses its possible ambit in light of the decisions so far rendered. The author considers that, properly interpreted, Chapter 11 will provide an extraordinary means of redress and will not open the floodgates to all kinds of claims that second-guess legitimate governmental legislative activity or policymaking.

Investor-State Dispute Settlement under NAFTA Chapter 11: The Shape of Things to Come?

1998 ◽  
Vol 35 ◽  
pp. 263-290
Author(s):  
J. Anthony VanDuzer
Keyword(s):  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Minimum Standards ◽  
The North ◽  
State Behaviour ◽  
Nafta Chapter 11 ◽  
To Come ◽  
The Right

SummaryRecently, there has been a proliferation of international agreements imposing minimum standards on states in respect of their treatment of foreign investors and allowing investors to initiate dispute settlement proceedings where a state violates these standards. Of greatest significance to Canada is Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which provides both standards for state behaviour and the right to initiate binding arbitration. Since 1996, four cases have been brought under Chapter 11. This note describes the Chapter 11 process and suggests some of the issues that may arise as it is increasingly resorted to by investors.

scholarly journals NAFTA Is Renegotiated and Signed by the United States

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (1) ◽  
pp. 150-159 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Dairy Products ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Negotiation Process ◽  
Rules Of Origin ◽  
The North ◽  
United States Mexico

A twenty-four-year-old agreement was reborn on October 1, 2018, when President Trump announced that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) had been successfully renegotiated. The deal came after an arduous, year-long negotiation process that almost left Canada behind. As one indicator of its contentiousness, the deal lacks an agreed-upon name, but the United States is referring to it as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). It keeps some key NAFTA provisions mostly the same, including with respect to state-to-state dispute resolution, but eliminates, modifies, and adds other provisions. Among the changes: investor-state dispute settlement has been eliminated as between the United States and Canada; rules of origin for automobiles and rules for U.S. dairy products have been modified; and new provisions address labor protections, intellectual property rights, rights for indigenous persons, rules for trade negotiations with non-market countries, and the agreement's termination. The agreement was formally signed by the leaders of all three countries on November 30, 3018. It must be approved through the domestic ratification procedures of the three countries before it enters into force.

scholarly journals NAFTA 2.0: The Greenest Trade Agreement Ever?

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 659-677
Author(s):  
NOEMIE LAURENS ◽  
ZACHARY DOVE ◽  
JEAN FREDERIC MORIN ◽  
SIKINA JINNAH
Keyword(s):  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Environmental Issues ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Environmental Agreements ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Multilateral Environmental Agreements ◽  
The Core ◽  
The North ◽  
Settlement Mechanism

AbstractThe renegotiation of what US President Trump called ‘the worst trade deal ever’ has resulted in the most detailed environmental chapter in any trade agreement in history. The USMCA mentions dozens of environmental issues that its predecessor, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), overlooked, and in line with contemporary US practice, brings the vast majority of environmental provisions into the core of the agreement, and subjects these provisions to a sanction-based dispute settlement mechanism. It also jettisons two controversial NAFTA measures potentially harmful to the environment. However, this paper argues that the USMCA only makes limited contributions to environmental protection. It primarily replicates most of the environmental provisions included in recent agreements, and only introduces three unprecedented environmental provisions. Moreover, it avoids important issues such as climate change, it does not mention the precautionary principle, and it scales back some environmental provisions related to multilateral environmental agreements.

Part 2 Determining the Applicable Attorney–Client Privilege Standard, 9 Applicable Privilege Standard in Investor–State Arbitration and Comparison with International Commercial Arbitration

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Möckesch Annabelle
Keyword(s):  
Free Trade ◽  
North American ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Foreign Investors ◽  
International Commercial Arbitration ◽  
The North ◽  
Multilateral Treaties

In investor–state arbitrations, which are concerned with the resolution of disputes between foreign investors and states parties over the state’s exercise of its public authority in relation to legislative, administrative, or judicial measures, the parties often invoke attorney–client privilege as a defence to document production requests. This chapter therefore examines how arbitral tribunals have determined the applicable attorney–client privilege standard in investor–state arbitration. It reports on several procedural orders and decisions issued by arbitral tribunals constituted under the North American Free Trade Agreement and other bilateral or multilateral treaties. As in these proceedings attorney–client privilege claims often arise together with Cabinet privilege claims, the tribunals’ findings on the applicable Cabinet privilege standard are presented as well. Lastly, the chapter explores whether the solution proposed for international commercial arbitration can also be adopted in investor–state arbitration.

System-Building in Investment Treaty Arbitration and Lawmaking

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 1083-1110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephan W. Schill
Keyword(s):  
Free Trade ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
State Level ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Foreign Investors ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
The North ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Treaty Arbitration

Since the late 1990s investment treaty arbitration has developed into one of the most vibrant fields of international dispute settlement with now almost 400 known cases. It involves claims by foreign investors against host States for breach of obligations assumed under one of the more than 2700 bilateral investment treaties (BITs), under the numerous investment chapters in bilateral or regional free trade agreements, including the North American Free Trade Agreement, or under sectoral treaties such as the Energy Charter Treaty. All of these instruments offer comprehensive protection to foreign investors by setting down principles of substantive investment protection, including national and most-favored-nation treatment, fair and equitable treatment, full protection and security, protection against expropriation without compensation, and free capital transfer. They also allow investors to enforce these standards in arbitral proceedings directly against the host State, most commonly under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention). Investment treaty arbitration thereby not only empowers foreign investors under international law, but also introduces investment treaty tribunals as novel actors into the arena of international investment law. Although arbitration has been a classic form of dispute settlement on the State-to-State level, including for the settlement of investment-related disputes, modern investment treaty tribunals have wider jurisdiction and are more removed from State control than any of their predecessors.

Optimization of the consumption function under the North American Free Trade Agreement

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 87-103
Author(s):  
Dora Ledesma ◽  
Lidia Hernández-Hernández ◽  
María Teresa Leonor Muciño-Porras
Keyword(s):  
Free Trade ◽  
Optimization Model ◽  
Tax Policy ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The Other ◽  
Support Programs ◽  
Consumption Function ◽  
The North ◽  
The Government

In the last 40 years, the country has turned to developing the primary and tertiary sectors with a tax policy heavily taxing goods outside the basic basket and generalizing others. On the other hand, Government implemented support programs for vulnerable sectors. The imbalance between what the government receives and grants created greater poverty, affecting mainly households in the first three income deciles. This work shows this imbalance in different scenarios using an optimization model.

International law and domestic institutions: reconciling North American “unfair” trade laws

1996 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 541-564 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith Goldstein
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
North American ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
Cooperative Behavior ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Domestic Institutions ◽  
The North

While scholars have written much about the role played by international institutions in cooperative behavior among nations, they have not examined the domestic political motives that may lie behind nations' decisions to join such organizations. Two-level games analysis provides a framework for studying domestic politics not as a constraint upon nations that enter into international agreements but as a catalyst for nations to enter into agreements. The dispute settlement procedures of the North American Free Trade Agreement and its predecessor, the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, offer an empirical illustration of this point.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document