The United States and Dispute Settlement under the North American Free Trade Agreement: Ambivalence, Frustration, and Occasional Defiance

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511819759.012

11 - The United States and Dispute Settlement under the North American Free Trade Agreement: Ambivalence, Frustration, and Occasional Defiance

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012

David A. Gantz

Edited by

Cesare P. R. Romano

Show author details

Cesare P. R. Romano: Affiliation:
Loyola Marymount University, California

Book contents

Get access

Summary

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and its two parallel agreements on labor and on the environment incorporate a broad and sometimes confusing variety of mechanisms for resolving the disputes that relate to the interpretation and application of certain NAFTA provisions in specific situations.

Essentially, there are six distinct dispute resolution procedures within the larger NAFTA framework:

those relating to foreign investment and investor-state disputes (Chapter 11),
financial services (Chapter 14, a variation on Chapter 20),
appeals of antidumping and countervailing duty (unfair trade) actions by administrative agencies (Chapter 19),
interpretation and application of the agreement generally (Chapter 20),
failure to enforce environmental laws (North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, or NAAEC), and
failure to enforce labor laws (North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation, or NAALC).

The latter two are not discussed herein because neither arbitral process has ever been seriously considered for utilization and it is thus impossible to measure U.S. attitudes toward them. Likewise, financial services disputes, using a variation of the Chapter 20 mechanism, are discussed only briefly because no disagreement over financial services has yet been referred to arbitration.

It is evident that this impressive package was accepted with some ambivalence by the U.S. government; as we will see, each of these mechanisms was incorporated for a variety of mostly pragmatic and diplomatic, as well as legal, reasons.

Type: Chapter
Information: The Sword and the Scales
The United States and International Courts and Tribunals
, pp. 356 - 394

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511819759.012 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Price, Daniel M. and Christy, III P. Bryan, Overview of the NAFTA Investment Chapter: Substantive Rules and Investor-State Dispute Settlement in The North American Free Trade Agreement: A New Frontier in International Trade and Investment in the Americas (Bello, Judith H. et al. eds., American Bar Association, 1994), 165, 167Google Scholar

Gudgeon, K. Scott, United States Bilateral Investment Treaties: Comments on Their Origin, Purposes and General Treatment Standards, 4 Int'l Tax & Bus. L. 105 (1986)Google Scholar

Hart, Michael, Dymond, Bill, and Robertson, Colin, Decision at Midnight: Inside the Canada–U.S. Free-Trade Negotiations (UBC Press, Vancouver, 1994), 302Google Scholar

Jackson, John H., The Jurisprudence of GATT and the WTO (Cambridge, 2000) 165Google Scholar

Vandevelde, Kenneth, United States Investment Treaties: Policy and Practice (Kluwer, 1992), 22–25Google Scholar

Clodfelter, Mark, U.S. State Department Participation in International Economic Dispute Resolution, 42 S. Tex. L. Rev. 1273, 1283 (2001)Google Scholar

Menyasz, Peter, NAFTA Chapter 11 Provisions Said to Threaten Environmental Protection Rights, 16 Int'l Trade Rep. 1146 (1999)Google Scholar

Gantz, David A., The Evolution of FTA Investment Provisions from NAFTA to the United States–Chile Free Trade Agreement, 19 Am. Univ. Int'l L.R.679, 724–28 (2004)Google Scholar

Knull, William H. and Rubins, Noah D., Betting the Farm on International Arbitration: Is It Time to Offer an Appeal Option? 11 Am. Rev. Int'l Arb.531 (2000)Google Scholar

Franck, Susan D., The Legitimacy Crisis in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Privatizing Public International Law through Inconsistent Decisions, 73 Fordham L. R.1521 (2005)Google Scholar

Gantz, David A., An Appellate Mechanism for Review of Arbitral Decisions in Investor-State Disputes: Prospects and Challenges, 39 Vanderbilt J. Transnat'l L.1295 (2006)Google Scholar

Gantz, David A., Resolution of Trade Disputes under NAFTA's Chapter 19: The Lessons of Extending the Binational Panel Process to Mexico, 29 Law & Policy in Int'l Business297 (1998)Google Scholar

Endsley, Harry B., Dispute Settlement under the CFTA and NAFTA: From Eleventh-Hour Innovation to Accepted Institution, 18 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.659, 671–72 (1995)Google Scholar

Cunningham, and Smith, , Section 301 and Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization, in the World Trade Organization (Stuart, Terrence ed., American Bar Association, 1996)Google Scholar

Gantz, David A., Dispute Settlement under the NAFTA and the WTO: Choice of Forum Opportunities and Risks for the NAFTA Parties, 14 Am. U. Int'l L. R.1025, 1083–95 (1999)Google Scholar

Brevetti, Rossella, NAFTA: Reps. Hunter and Kaptur Introduce Bill Putting Limits on Mexican Trucking Plan, 24 Int'l Trade Rep. (BNA)522 (Apr. 12, 2007)Google Scholar

Winebrenner, Jane, House Democrats' Omnibus Spending Bill Includes Mexican Truck Ban, Sales to Cuba, 26 Int'l Trade Rep. (BNA)284 (Feb. 26, 2009)Google Scholar

Gantz, David A., Government-to-Government Dispute Resolution under NAFTA's Chapter 20: A Commentary on the Process, 11 Am. Rev. Int'l Arb.481, 456–549 (2002)Google Scholar