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

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.

Part II Guide to Key Preliminary and Procedural Issues, 9 Piercing the Veil of Confidentiality: The Recent Trend towards Greater Public Participation and Transparency in Investment Treaty Arbitration

Over the past few years, the US, Canada, and the EU have incorporated ‘transparency’ provisions into their investment treaties. Arbitration under those treaties thus will not be confidential, regardless of the arbitral rules governing them. By contrast, Russia’s 2016 regulation for the negotiation of investment treaties expressly provides for confidentiality of arbitration, including the award, unless both parties consent in writing to disclose information. This chapter traces the development of public disclosure and participation in investment arbitration. It is divided into three sections: public access to arbitral documents, third-party written submissions, and public access to arbitration hearings. Each section addresses developments under NAFTA Chapter 11, the evolution of the practice under the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Dispute (ICSID) Arbitration Rules, the approach taken by the new UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency, the status of other arbitration rules, and the practice of certain States as shown in their recent agreements.

The Role of Regional Courts in the Development of International Investment Law: The Case of NAFTA Chapter 11 Dispute Settlement Framework and ECtHR

Regional courts have synthesized, articulated, and elucidated certain principles of law that influence the development of international investment law. The contributions of NAFTA Chapter 11 dispute settlement framework and European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in particular, have been outstanding. For instance, NAFTA jurisprudence has guided investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) tribunals through influential precedents. Similarly, the doctrine of proportionality and the margin of appreciation doctrine which emerged from the ECtHR jurisprudence have become embedded in international investment law. Indeed, given the unique contributions of regional courts and their rapid proliferation, it can be predicted that they will play even more significant roles in the future development of principles of international investment law. Arguably, such emergent principles should be subjected to a prior scrutiny and filtering by ISDS institutions as a precondition to full incorporation into international investment law to foster their legitimacy and credibility.

Bilcon et al. v. Canada

InBilcon et al.v.Canada, a NAFTA Chapter 11 dispute, the tribunal's majority held Canada liable for breaches of NAFTA Articles 1102 (National Treatment) and 1105 (Minimum Standard of Treatment). Pr. D. McRae – Canada's appointed arbitrator – dissented from both findings.