Apotex Inc. v. United States: Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (NAFTA Arb.)

2013 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 905-965 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald J. Bettauer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Minimum Standards ◽  
The North ◽  
The Right

The North American Free Trade Agreement between Canada, Mexico, and the United States (NAFTA) entered into force on January 1, 1994. Chapter Eleven of NAFTA contains provisions governing investment protection and investor-state arbitration. In general, NAFTA provides investors of one of the parties protections for their investments in another NAFTA party, guaranteeing: treatment at least as good as that of host or third country investors (NAFTA articles 1102-1104); treatment in accordance with the minimum standards of customary international law (NAFTA article 1105); and compensation for expropriation (NAFTA article 1110). NAFTA article 1139 defines “investment” broadly but excludes contracts for the sale of goods or services. After meeting specified threshold requirements, such an investor has the right to international arbitration against the host state to vindicate these protections.

scholarly journals NAFTA, Alberta Oil Sands Royalties, and Change: Yes We Can?

2009 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 335 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernard J. Roth
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Oil Sands ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
The North ◽  
The Government ◽  
Domestic Law

The Government of Alberta has recently announced that it intends to increase oil sands royalty rates. This article reviews these proposed changes to determine if they comply with the investment protection obligations Canada assumed under c. 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In addition to ensuring non-discriminatory treatment of investors, c. 11 of the NAFTA prohibits expropriation of investments without compensation. What constitutes expropriation under the NAFTA may be broader than the expropriation protection under either American or Canadian domestic law. The result is that American investors in Canada may have greater protection against expropriation than Canadian investors in Alberta. Likewise, Canadian investors in the United States may also be in a preferred position relative to American investors in their own country. The article concludes that the Government of Alberta may have to compensate U.S. investors in Alberta’s oil sands if it carries through with the oil sands royalty changes it has announced.

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.

Neoliberalism and Counterinsurgency

Colombia ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard D. Mahoney
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Latin American ◽  
North American ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
The North ◽  
Trade Promotion ◽  
The U.S

How did the U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement come about? The officially named “U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement” was the stepchild of a rancorous hemispheric divorce between the United States and five Latin American governments over the proposal to extend the North American Free Trade Agreement...

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.

The North American Free Trade Agreement: An ecological-economic synthesis for the United States and Mexico

1994 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward B. DeBellevue ◽  
Eric Hitzel ◽  
Kenneth Cline ◽  
Jorge A. Benitez ◽  
Julia Ramos-Miranda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
North American ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Ecological Economic ◽  
The North

Prospects for Mexico and Central America to end-2017

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Central America ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The North ◽  
And Migration ◽  
Business As Usual

Subject Prospects for Mexico and Central America to end-2017. Significance The economies of Mexico and Central America will maintain a ‘business as usual’ stance until renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) formally starts later in the year. Growth momentum in the region is therefore likely to be maintained for the rest of 2017. Nonetheless, threats to trade and migration links with the United States, and to remittance income, will drive uncertainty.

scholarly journals An Historical (Inter)dependency: Mexican Migration to the United States

Elements ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Hamilton
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Mexican Migration ◽  
Stated Goal ◽  
The North ◽  
Economic Survival ◽  
Historical Relationship

Longstanding incentives for migration have encouraged individuals to travel from Mexico to the United States in search of higher wages and economic survival. These incentives exist despite the stated goal of various officials to curb immigration to the United States. in fact, the migration of workers is a key facet in the historical relationship between the United States and Mexico. Several policies have contributed to the continued migration and have further entrenched a growing dependency between the two nations. This paper serves as an in-depth examination of the causes of this economic dependence and investigates what effect the latest of these policies, the North American Free Trade Agreement, has on the issue.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document