Fair and Equitable Treatment: Methanex V. United States and the Narrowing Scope of NAFTA Article 1105
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
I. INTRODUCTION The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, which became effective on January 1, 1994, followed in the footsteps of the Treaties of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation and bilateral investment treaties (BITs) in providing protection to foreign investment. (2) The NAFTA's trilateral arrangement guarantees comprehensive protection to the investments of one NAFTA Party's investors in the territory of another. (3) Investment is defined broadly in Article 1139 of the NAFTA and includes ownership and other interests in an enterprise, equity or debt securities, real estate, and tangible and intangible property, including intellectual property. (4) Chapter 11 of the NAFTA addresses investment protection and sets out three objectives: (1) to establish a secure investment environment through the elaboration of clear rules of of foreign investment and investors; (2) to remove barriers to investment by eliminating or liberalizing existing restrictions; and (3) to provide an effective means for the resolution of disputes between an investor and the host government. (5) Article 1105 provides that [e]ach Party shall accord to investments of investors of another Party in accordance with international law, including and equitable and full protection and security. (6) The scope of Article 1105's investment protections is presently subject to great debate. Disputes recently arbitrated under the Chapter 11 dispute resolution mechanism have highlighted the tension between protections provided to investments and the power of governments, including state or provincial governments, to regulate. (7) Many of these disputes have involved environmental regulation. (8) The tension between investment protection and government regulation, combined with the broad definitions employed in the text of the NAFTA, has brought to the fore debate about the scope of these protections. The scope of and equitable has been addressed by several Chapter 11 arbitral tribunals and is presently being addressed in Methanex v. United States. (9) This Note will first consider fair and equitable treatment generally, as defined in BITs and customary international law. Second, this Note will review NAFTA Chapter 11 jurisprudence regarding the scope of and equitable treatment. Third, I will examine the Methanex proceeding in which the scope of and equitable is presently being considered. Fourth, I will evaluate the effects of the Free Trade Commission's (FTC) Interpretation of Certain Chapter 11 Provisions of July 31, 2001 (the Interpretation), in which the FTC clarified the scope of Article 1105's and equitable provision. Finally, I will suggest a logical interpretation of and equitable in light of Article 1105's text and purpose. A. and Equitable Treatment Generally Fair and equitable like many terms in the text of the NAFTA, is not defined. Traditional rules of treaty interpretation mandate that the terms of a treaty be interpreted in accordance with their plain meaning in light of the object and purpose of the treaty. (10) If the terms are ambiguous or the plain reading would lead to an unreasonable result, resorting to the travaux preparatoires, or negotiating history, is appropriate. (11) The travaux preparatoires for Chapter 11, however, are limited. (12) Critics of the NAFTA argue for a narrow interpretation of and equitable treatment, whereas proponents argue for a more expansive reading. Fair and equitable treatment is a term of international law that appears in BITs that the United States has entered into with other states, as well as in BITs between other states. Nearly all recent BITs require that investments and investors covered under the treaty receive 'fair and equitable treatment,' in spite of the fact that there is no general agreement on the precise meaning of this phrase. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».