The Mexican Trucking Dispute: A Bottleneck to Free Trade. A Tough (Road) Test on the NAFTA Dispute Settlement Mechanism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I. INTRODUCTION The harmonization of domestic concerns and international treaty obligations is out of tune at best, as the United States unacceptably delayed opening the border to Mexican trucking services. Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), (1) the United States, Canada, and Mexico provided for a gradual phase out of motor carrier restrictions. (2) The Agreement provides for allowing Mexican operators onto U.S. highways and Mexican investment in the American trucking industry and vice versa. (3) To date, an enduring domestic battle may be resolved by legislation containing strict safety requirements, but implementation realities resulted in further stalling the opening of the border. (4) In accordance with NAFTA, Mexican trucks should have been allowed into the four border states on December 18, 1995. (5) However, after an abrupt about-face, the United States delayed the opening, citing safety concerns. (6) Thereafter, Mexico initiated formal dispute resolution under Chapter 20 of NAFTA. (7) Following failed consultations, Mexico petitioned for formal dispute resolution, and the Arbitral Panel was established. (8) The Panel questioned whether the United States is in breach of Articles 1202 (national treatment for cross-border services) and/or 1203 (most-favored-nation treatment for cross-border services) of NAFTA by failing to lift its moratorium on the processing of applications by Mexican-owned trucking firms for authority to operate in the U.S. border states. Similarly ... whether the United States breached Articles 1102 (national treatment) and/or 1103 (most-favored-nation treatment) by refusing to permit Mexican investment in companies in the United States that provide transportation of international cargo. (9) This Comment reviews the Arbitral Panel's final report of In the Matter of Cross-Border Trucking Services, evaluating the alleged breaches of NAFTA. (10) The Comment also assesses the non-compliance by the United States and questions the legitimacy and future of the NAFTA dispute settlement mechanism in light of the delayed cooperation. The thesis of this Comment argues that, evidenced by the Mexican trucking conflict, the NAFTA dispute settlement mechanism lacks effectiveness absent additional, workable provisions to monitor implementation of decisions. Although its weaknesses have not proved detrimental, the future success of NAFTA may be compromised if the mechanism remains unchanged. Parts II and III discuss the growth and structure of NAFTA and the development of the trucking dispute therein. Part IV presents the findings and discusses the analysis of the Arbitral Panel. Part V addresses actions (or inactions) taken toward compliance with the Arbitral Panel's decision. Part VI concludes by considering the implications on the future of NAFTA and questioning the effectiveness of the NAFTA dispute resolution mechanism in light of the Mexican trucking dispute. II. DEVELOPMENT AND STRUCTURE OF NAFTA A. History In 1993, NAFTA became the first free-trade agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, a developing country. (11) The purpose of the innovative treaty is to form a free-trade zone between these countries, (12) eliminating tariff and non-tariff barriers on trade to increase the flow of trade among the countries. (13) To preserve national autonomy, the Agreement does not purport to serve as a constitution in the sense of altering the distribution of powers among its Parties. (14) Without endeavoring to alter the social policies of the parties, NAFTA primarily aims to create a regional economic trading agreement. (15) B. Effects Overall, the three parties to NAFTA have benefited from the Agreement. (16) NAFTA created a regional coalition competitive with the European Union. (17) As a result of NAFTA, Mexico has become the second largest trading partner of the United States, as trade grew from $100 billion in 1994 to $248 billion in 2000. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".