scholarly journals From NAFTA to USMCA: Two’s Company, Three’s a Crowd

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradly J. Condon
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Bilateral Trade ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Minor Role ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Nafta Chapter 11 ◽  
Trade Remedies ◽  
Trade Deals

The renegotiation of NAFTA was surrounded by a dramatic atmosphere, just as Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland predicted. The negotiations took place against a backdrop of unilateral trade measures, President Trump’s mercantilist approach to trade policy, and the United States’ specified preference for bilateral trade deals. This article argues that, for the most part, economic, political and cultural relations in the NAFTA countries are bilateral in nature, but with important trilateral production chains in specific sectors, most notably in the automotive sector. Beyond these trilateral sectors, the relationship between Canada and Mexico plays a relatively minor role. However, replacing NAFTA with bilateral agreements would have placed Canada and Mexico at a disadvantage, relative to the United States, in terms of attracting foreign direct investment. Nevertheless, Canadian and Mexican interests do not always coincide, nor do their negotiating positions. For example, Mexico was willing to give up Chapter 19 dispute settlement for trade remedies, whereas Canada insisted on keeping it in place. In end, USMCA Chapter 10 preserves this dispute settlement mechanism for all three parties. Canada was willing to give up NAFTA Chapter 11 on foreign investment disputes, whereas Mexico accepted a modified version. The result is a trilateral agreement with significant bilateral elements, as well as global elements that will serve as a possible model in future megaregional and multilateral negotiations.

scholarly journals Comparison of First to File Doctrine and Trademark Dispute Settlement Mechanism in Indonesia and the United States

2021 ◽  
Vol 04 (07) ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Iqbal Simatupang ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
The United States ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Common Mechanism ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Settlement Mechanism

The research explained comparatively the application of the first to file doctrine and the trademark dispute settlement mechanism in Indonesia and in the United States. The purpose of this research was to provide a broad explanation of the application of the first to file doctrine and provide an overview of the mechanism for settling the problem of infringement of trademark rights. This study used a normative juridical research method with a statutory approach (Statute Approach) accompanied by a Comparative Approach, the data used was secondary data. Based on the research results, it was known that the Trademark Law still recognizes and / or implements the first to file and first to use doctrine. In Indonesian law, which basically adheres to the first to file doctrine, it still provides room for the first user to claim ownership of a trademark. Meanwhile, The Lanham Act accommodates the doctrine of first to use and first to file simultaneously but is limited by the trademark rights protection space. The mechanisms for settling trademark rights infringement disputes in Indonesia and in the United States have similarities and differences. The similarity is in both country, trademark dispute settllement is done through the litigation and non-litigation mechanism. The difference is that in Indonesia the most common mechanism is litigation, while in the United States the non-litigation mechanism is preferred in settling disputes over trademark rights.

Precedent in the WTO: Retrospective Reflections for a Prospective Dispute Settlement Mechanism

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 262-277
Author(s):  
Mariana Clara de Andrade
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
Wto Appellate Body ◽  
Legitimacy Crisis ◽  
Settlement Mechanism

Abstract Several factors triggered the legitimacy crisis which paralysed the WTO Appellate Body in December 2019. This article focuses on one of them: the criticism expressed by the United States that the ‘Appellate Body claims its reports are entitled to be treated as precedent’. This work describes the origins of the problem and examines the issue of the precedential value of adopted reports within the WTO dispute settlement. It argues that the problem cannot be addressed through textual attempts to better define the value of precedent, as some have suggested, but can be alleviated through the practice of adjudicators. Moreover, it argues that the criticisms regarding the precedential value of past reports is due to the inherent hierarchy ensuing from the existence of an appeals organ. Therefore, the demise of the Appellate Body may weaken the precedential value of past adopted reports.

scholarly journals Reforms for culmination of the deadlock in appellate body of WTO: An agenda of saving the multilateral trading system

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-62
Author(s):  
Asif Khan ◽  
Ximei Wu
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Descriptive Study ◽  
The United States ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Trading System ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Multilateral Trading System ◽  
The World ◽  
Settlement Mechanism

The World Trade Organization's (WTO’s) dispute settlement mechanism, known as the "pearl in the crown," is stalled due to United States (U.S.) obstruction, which prevents appellate body members from being ordained. This situation continues, and the WTO’s dispute settlement function is paralyzed since 2019. The WTO has faced a crisis in recent years, and the trade legislation has stagnated. The dispute settlement body was also blocked due to U.S. interference, which led to the failure of the appellate body’s members to be selected. The data has been gathered for this descriptive study using secondary research method, including different newspaper articles and the internet, which were outlined and noted. This paper presents and evaluates several existing proposals on how to get out of the impasse. This paper points out whether the existing WTO members can choose to join or not participate in establishing a new appellate body. On this basis, it makes its own relatively unique proposal, namely, to establish a substantial dispute settlement mechanism outside the WTO, parallel to the existing dispute settlement mechanism, and it demonstrates the legal feasibility of the proposal. Immediately, the states should begin negotiations on the significant agreements required for this new appellate body. It will effectively solve the deadlock in the dispute settlement mechanism caused by the United States, blocking the appointment of members of the appellate body.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT FRENCH FOREIGN POLICY ACTIVITY

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-79
Author(s):  
Nargiza Sodikova ◽  
◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Security ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Modern Time ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Interests ◽  
French Foreign Policy

Important aspects of French foreign policy and national interests in the modern time,France's position in international security and the specifics of foreign affairs with the United States and the European Union are revealed in this article

scholarly journals A Transatlantic Secular Divide? The Representation of Religion in EU and US Foreign Policy

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 451-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Jenichen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Policy Documents ◽  
Foreign Policies ◽  
Eu And Us ◽  
And Behavior ◽  
The Eu

AbstractIt is a common—often stereotypical—presumption that Europe is secular and America religious. Differences in international religious freedom and religious engagement policies on both sides of the Atlantic seem to confirm this “cliché.” This article argues that to understand why it has been easier for American supporters to institutionalize these policies than for advocates in the EU, it is important to consider the discursive structures of EU and US foreign policies, which enable and constrain political language and behavior. Based on the analysis of foreign policy documents, produced by the EU and the United States in their relationship with six religiously diverse African and Asian states, the article compares how both international actors represent religion in their foreign affairs. The analysis reveals similarities in the relatively low importance that they attribute to religion and major differences in how they represent the contribution of religion to creating and solving problems in other states. In sum, the foreign policies of both international actors are based on a secular discursive structure, but that of the United States is much more accommodative toward religion, including Islam, than that of the EU.

scholarly journals The Danger of Analogical Myths: Explaining the Power and Consequences of the Sykes-Picot Delusion

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 110 ◽  
pp. 132-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toby Dodge
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Middle East ◽  
The United States ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Minor Role ◽  
Historical Significance ◽  
Historical Analogy ◽  
History Of ◽  
Political Units ◽  
Postcolonial States

Even before its hundredth year anniversary on 16 May 2016, the Sykes-Picot agreement had become a widely cited historical analogy both in the region itself and in Europe and the United States. In the Middle East, it is frequently deployed as an infamous example of European imperial betrayal and Western attempts more generally to keep the region divided, in conflict, and easy to dominate. In Europe and the United States, however, its role as a historical analogy is more complex—a shorthand for understanding the Middle East as irrevocably divided into mutually hostile sects and clans, destined to be mired in conflict until another external intervention imposes a new, more authentic, set of political units on the region to replace the postcolonial states left in the wake of WWI. What is notable about both these uses of the Sykes-Picot agreement is that they fundamentally misread, and thus overstate, its historical significance. The agreement reached by the British diplomat Mark Sykes and his French counterpart, François Georges-Picot, in May 1916, quickly became irrelevant as the realities on the ground in the Middle East, U.S. intervention into the war, a resurgent Turkey and the comparative weakness of the French and British states transformed international relations at the end of the First World War. Against this historical background, explaining the contemporary power of the narrative surrounding the use of the Sykes-Picot agreement becomes more intellectually interesting than its minor role in the history of European imperial interventions in the Middle East.

United States – Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Mexico (US–Tuna II (Mexico) (Article 21.5 – Mexico), DS381)

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 523-525
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Carlson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Technical Barriers To Trade ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Final Rule

This compliance proceeding under Article 21.5 of the DSU concerned measures taken by the United States to implement the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in US–Tuna II (Mexico). In US–Tuna II (Mexico), the DSB found that certain US measures concerning the importation, marketing, and sale of tuna products (taken together, the Original Tuna Measure) were inconsistent with the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (the TBT Agreement). The Original Tuna Measure, inter alia, contained conditions under which tuna products could be labelled ‘dolphin safe’. The United States' measure taken to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB consisted of an amendment to the Original Tuna Measure (the 2013 Final Rule). The Appellate Body generally referred to the Original Tuna Measure, together with the 2013 Final Rule, as the Amended Tuna Measure. The Amended Tuna Measure was the focus of this compliance proceeding.

Extraterritorial Shrimps, NGOs and the WTO Appellate Body

1999 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 199-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Asif H. Qureshi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Market Access ◽  
The United States ◽  
Consultation Process ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Us ◽  
Wto Appellate Body ◽  
Dispute Settlement System

At the centre of the international trading order, under the framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO), lies a dispute-settlement system. This system offers a graduated conflict-resolution mechanism that begins with a consultation process; progresses to adjudication, through a panel system, and ends in an appellate process.1 Under this machinery, in October 1996 India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand (the complainants) requested joint consultations with the United States, regarding the US prohibition on the importation of certain shrimps and shrimp products caught with fishing technology considered by the United States adversely to affect the population of sea turtles—an endangered species under CITES.2 The US prohibition arose from section 609 of Public Law 101–1623 and associated regulations and judicial rulings (hereafter referred to as section 609). In a nutshell the complainants claimed denial of market access to their exports, and the United States justified this on grounds of conservation. However, as a consequence of the failure of the consultations, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body established a panel, around April 1997, to consider a joint complaint against the United States in relation to section 609. Australia, Ecuador, the European Communities, HongKong, China, Mexico and Nigeria joined the complainants as third parties. In May 1998 the panel's report was published, containing a decision in favour of the complainants. In July 1998 the United States appealed to the WTO Appellate Body, and in October 1998 the Appellate Body issued its report.4

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document