This is from blog reader and occasional commenter Adrián Vázquez Benítez, a Mexican trade lawyer: AFTER CHAPTER 19 NAFTA ELIMINATION: WHO WILL DEFEND US? USTR recently announced its objectives regarding the renegotiation of NAFTA, one seeking to remove Chapter 19 "Review and Dispute Settlement in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

This is from Chad Bown: Figure 1 illustrates the United States’ use of [trade remedies] over the NAFTA period of 1994–2016, as well as a projection for potential use in 2017 (more on this below). Each line represents the share of US imports from a different foreign source that

Here are some excerpts from an old law review debate about the constitutionality of CUSFTA Chapter 19: Alan Morrison of Public Citizen: If the meaning and applicability of the laws of the United States dealing with antidumping and countervailing duties are enunciated and given legally binding effect in decisions directly

In a recent post here, I commented on the absence of Fair and Equitable Treatment and protection against expropriation from the text on investment in the recently released (thought not finalized) Japan-EU Economic Partner Agreement (JEEPA), speculating that this might be seen as a shift to a focus on non-discrimination

USTR has just published the Trump administration's NAFTA negotiating objectives here. Many of them will look familiar, as they are a standard part of U.S. trade negotiations.  Here are some examples: Investment - "Secure for U.S. investors in the NAFTA countries important rights consistent with

This is from the Trade and Sustainable Development chapter of the Japan-EU Economic Partnership Agreement (JEEPA), circulated by the EU last week: Article 4 Multilateral environmental agreements ... 4. The Parties reaffirm their commitment to achieving the ultimate objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Parties

How much does ISDS litigation on tobacco regulation cost?  And who has to pay? This was from the Philip Morris v. Uruguay tribunal: 588. In view of the outcome of the case and the significant disproportion between the Parties’ respective costs, the Tribunal deems it fair and reasonable that the

The Japan-EU trade deal, the JEEPA, has many facets and implications-economic, geopolitical and legal. On its own, the text of the investment chapter merits attention.   The EU and Japan seemed to have scrapped the classic BIT/investor protection architecture as a model, and instead designed a set of disciplines that

The conclusion of an “Agreement in Principle” on the Japan-EU Economic Partnership Agreement (JEEPA) is being heralded by many as a major victory for free trade. Despite growing concerns about a rise in protectionism, the EU and Japan are trying to buck this trend. Beyond the big picture, however, some

In June 2017, Foreign Affairs published a piece entitled “Will Economic Globalization End? Foreign Affairs Asks the Experts.” In it, the editors explained that they had decided to ask a “broad pool of experts” for their take and so, as with previous surveys, they approached “dozens of authorities,” some with