Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T12:23:08.925Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International law and domestic institutions: reconciling North American “unfair” trade laws

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Judith Goldstein
Judith Goldstein
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Political Science at Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Get access

Abstract

While scholars have written much about the role played by international institutions in cooperative behavior among nations, they have not examined the domestic political motives that may lie behind nations' decisions to join such organizations. Two-level games analysis provides a framework for studying domestic politics not as a constraint upon nations that enter into international agreements but as a catalyst for nations to enter into agreements. The dispute settlement procedures of the North American Free Trade Agreement and its predecessor, the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, offer an empirical illustration of this point.

Type
Articles
Information
International Organization , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , Autumn 1996 , pp. 541 - 564
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1996

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.)

References

Anderson, Keith B. 1993. Antidumping laws in the United States. Journal of World Trade 27(2): 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, John, and Carte, Barry. 1993. International law and institutions for a new age. Georgetown Law Journal 81:535–62.Google Scholar
Cameron, David. 1988. The Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, Department of Political Science, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Unpublished.Google Scholar
Cameron, Duncan, Clarkson, Stephen, and Watkins, Mel. 1988. Market access, in The free trade deal, edited by Cameron, Duncan. Toronto:Lorimer.Google Scholar
Cannon, James Jr 1991. Binational panel dispute settlement under Article 1904 of the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement: A procedural comparison with the United States Court of International Trade. Law and Policy in International Business 22:689–719.Google Scholar
Destler, I. M., Odell, John, with Elliott, Kimberly Ann. 1987. Anti-protectionism: Changing forces in United States trade politics. Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
Doern, G. Bruce, and Tomlin, Brian. 1991. Faith and fear. Toronto: Stoddart.Google Scholar
Evans, Peter, Jacobson, Harold, and Plutnam, Robert, eds. 1995. Double-edged diplomacy. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Judith. 1993. Ideas, interests, and American trade policy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Judith. 1995. Judicial review and American trade policy, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif. Unpublished.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Judith, and Lenway, Stephanie. 1989. Interests or institutions: An inquiry into congressional-ITC relations. International Studies Quarterly 33:303–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, William. 1988. The role of the Commission in the Canada–U.S. Free Trade Agreement: A Canadian perspective, in United States/Canada Free Trade Agreement: The economic and legal implications. Washington, D.C.: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
Hart, Michael A. 1994. Decision at midnight. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Hudec, Robert. 1987. Dispute resolution under a North American free trade area: The importance of domestic legal setting. Canada–U.S. Law Journal 12:329–36.Google Scholar
Jackson, John. 1979a. Governmental disputes in international trade relations: A proposal in the context of GATT. Journal of World Trade Law 13:1–21.Google Scholar
Jackson, John. 1979b. Introduction: Perspectives on antidumping law and policy. In Antidumping law: Policy and implementation, vol. 1 of Michigan yearbook of international legal studies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert. 1984. After hegemony. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert, and Nye, Joseph. 1977. Power and interdependence: World politics in transition. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Krasner, Stephen. 1993. Global communications and national power: Life on the Pareto frontier. World Politics 45:336–66.Google Scholar
Lowenfeld, Andreas. 1994. Remedies along with rights: Institutional reform in the new GATT. American Journal of International Law 88:477–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milgrom, Paul, and Roberts, John. 1992. Economics, organization, and management. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Odell, John. 1985. The outcomes of international trade conflicts: The U.S. and South Korea, 1960–1981. International Studies Quarterly 29:263–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pastor, Robert. 1980. Congress and the politics of U.S. foreign economic policy. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert. 1988. Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization 42:427–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schott, Jeffrey J. 1988. The Free Trade Agreement: A U.S. assessment. In The Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement: The global impact, edited by Schott, Jeffrey and Smith, Murray. Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
United States-Canada Free Trade Implementation Act of 1988 (FTA). U.S. Public Law 100–449, 28 09 1988.Google Scholar
U.S. General Accounting Office. 1995. U.S.–Canada Free Trade Agreement: Factors contributing to controversy in appeals of trade remedy cases to binational panels. Briefing report to congressional requesters. Doc. no. GGD-95-175BR, June.Google Scholar
U.S. House. 1988. Committee on Judiciary. Subcommittee on Courts. Hearings on the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. 102d Cong., 2d session, APril 18.Google Scholar
U.S. Tariff Commission. 1919. Information concerning dumping and unfair foreign competition in the U.S. and Canada's antidumping law. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Winham, Gilbert. 1986. International trade and the Tokyo Round negotiation. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar