MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W233219730

Potential Conflicts between Investor Rights and Environmental Regulation under NAFTA's Chapter 11

2001· article· en· W233219730 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
David A. Gantz

Notice bibliographique

Revue˜The œGeorge Washington international law review · 2001
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueWorld Trade Organization Law
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésInternational tradeIntellectual propertyGovernment procurementInvestment (military)BusinessGovernment (linguistics)Free tradeDispute resolutionTariffProcurementPolitical scienceLawPolitics
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

I. INTRODUCTION The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),1 which entered into force January 1, 1994, among the United States, Canada, and Mexico, has among its objectives, eliminate barriers to trade in, and facilitate the cross border movement of, goods and services between the territories of the and to increase substantially investment opportunities in the territories of the Parties .2 While the objectives do not mention environmental considerations, in the Preamble the Parties resolve to. undertake each of the preceding [expanding trade, investment, etc.] in a manner consistent with environmental protection and conservation . NAFTA's complex provisions focus on the elimination of import duties and non-tariff barriers on trade in goods3 and services,4 and on protection of investment.5 NAFTA, however, also covers, inter alia, agriculture, standards, government procurement, intellectual property, and business travel.6 While in most instances the NAFTA provisions have been implemented without delay or controversy, disputes have arisen in several key trade related areas, most significandy with regard to the United States' refusal to implement provi sions providing for cross-border trucking services.7 Earlier, disputes over trade in dairy products (United States v. Canada), in broom corn brooms (Mexico v. United States) and with regard to cross-border trucking services and investment (Mexico v. United States), were the subject of panel decisions under the governmentto-government dispute settlement procedures.8 Numerous antidumping and countervailing duty unfair trade (unfair trade cases permitted under WTO rules) cases have been appealed to binational panels convened under Chapter 19.9 In the longer run, however, it may well be that the investment protection provisions of Chapter 11 of NAFTA will become the most significant in terms of conflicts between free trade and investment flows, and other governmental objectives, such as protection of the environment. Protection of investment is an integral part of NAFTA. As one of the negotiators has noted: Trade and investment flows are interdependent. To achieve the benefits of economic liberalization, investment barriers must be addressed as comprehensively as trade barriers. Hence, a chapter on investment was an essential element of an agreement that was to provide the basis for hemispheric free trade.10 Chapter 11 of NAFTA provides a comprehensive series of rights for investors of one NAFTA Party investing and doing business in the territory of another NAFTA Party.11 It provides investors, inter alia, with detailed and explicit protection against nationalization and expropriation, including actions tantamount to expropria tion, as well as national treatment or most-favored-nation treatment, a guarantee of fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security under international law for their investments, to the extent required under international law, protection against performance requirements, flexibility in selecting senior management and free transfers of funds.12 These provisions are reciprocal. It seems clear that Canadian restrictions on foreign investment, particularly its screening of large investments, were a U.S. concern doing the negotiations. The Chapter 11 provisions, however, probably reflected more than anything else the desire to encourage United States (and Canadian) investment in Mexico by providing foreign investors with a greater level of confidence against arbitrary and discriminatory host government action, including but not limited to expropriation,13 complementing NAFTA's market access measures and the trade liberalization policies Mexico began in 1985.14 Nevertheless, those who assumed that the bulk of investment disputes under NAFTA would be between U.S. or Canadian investors and the Mexican Government guessed wrong. While much of the NAFTA Chapter 11 language is similar to that found in numerous U. …

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,989
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,998

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,019
Tête enseignante GPT0,265
Écart entre enseignants0,247 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations22
Publié2001
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revue˜The œGeorge Washington international law reviewMême sujetWorld Trade Organization LawTravaux en français237 207