The Commission for Environmental Cooperation and Environmental Management in the Americas

1998 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 41-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen P. Mumme ◽  
Pamela Duncan
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Management ◽  
North America ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Environmental Cooperation ◽  
Complete Answer ◽  
The North ◽  
International Commitments ◽  
New Institutions

To what extent has the North American Free Trade Agreement contributed to strengthening and deepening international environmental management in the Americas? Should the system be broadened to incorporate other nations? While a complete answer to these queries is currently beyond reach, there should be little doubt that NAFTA has influenced and continues to influence the direction of environmental management in North America and the hemisphere at large. The agreement has spawned a series of new institutions that are already reshaping current practices and that have considerable promise for broadening the range of international commitments to environmental management in the Americas. The most prominent and most relevant of these is the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC).

Speedy Mexico-EU trade deal promises risks and rewards

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
North America ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
North American ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Transportation Costs ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The North

Subject Mexico-EU trade talks Significance Talks on modernising the Mexico-EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) have gained urgency since the election of US President Donald Trump as the prospect of an end to free trade within North America forces Mexican officials to get serious about diversifying relations. While negotiators hope to seal a new EU deal by the end of the year, many issues are yet to be addressed and renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is absorbing bureaucratic capacity. Impacts Anti-American sentiment stemming from Washington’s hostility could favour European firms and investors in Mexico. The rush to conclude agreements risks bad deals and political blowback from Mexico’s opposition. Transportation costs and connectivity will ultimately matter more for Mexican diversification than already low tariffs.

scholarly journals The contradictions of regionalism in North America

2009 ◽  
Vol 35 (S1) ◽  
pp. 147-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANN CAPLING ◽  
KIM RICHARD NOSSAL
Keyword(s):  
North America ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Free Trade Agreements ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Implications ◽  
The North ◽  
The World

AbstractStudents of regionalism almost reflexively include North America in their lists of regions in contemporary global politics. Inevitably students of regionalism point to the integrative agreements between the countries of North America: the two free trade agreements that transformed the continental economy beginning in the late 1980s – the Canada–US Free Trade Agreement that came into force on 1 January 1989, and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the United States, Mexico, and Canada, that came into force on 1 January 1994 – and the Secutity and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), launched in March 2005. These agreements, it is implied, are just like the integrative agreements that forge the bonds of regionalism elsewhere in the world. We argue that this is a profound misreading, not only of the two free trade agreements of the late 1980s and early 1990s and the SPP mechanism of 2005, but also of the political and economic implications of those agreements. While these integrative agreements have created considerable regionalisation in North America, there has been little of the regionalism evident in other parts of the world. We examine the contradictions of North America integration in order to explain why North Americans have been so open to regionalisation but so resistant to regionalism.

The Strategic Timing of Position Taking in Congress: A Study of the North American Free Trade Agreement

1997 ◽  
Vol 91 (2) ◽  
pp. 324-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier ◽  
Laura W. Arnold ◽  
Christopher J. W. Zorn
Keyword(s):  
Free Trade ◽  
North American ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Critical Element ◽  
Vote Model ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
The North ◽  
Timing Model

A critical element of decision making is the timing of choices political actors make; often when a decision is made is as critical as the decision itself. We posit a dynamic model of strategic position announcement based on signaling theories of legislative politics. We suggest that members who receive clear signals from constituents, interest groups, and policy leaders will announce their positions earlier. Those with conflicting signals will seek more information, delaying their announcement. We test several expectations by examining data on when members of the House of Representatives announced their positions on the North American Free Trade Agreement. We also contrast the timing model with a vote model, and find that there are meaningful differences between the factors influencing the timing of position announcements and vote choice. Our research allows analysts to interpret the process leading up to the House action and the end state of that process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document