"This Does Not Matter in Mexico": Mexico-U.S. Competition Law - Conflicts and Resolutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I. INTRODUCTION II. MEXICO'S COMPETITION LAW: BEHIND THE LANGUAGE A. Single Agency Enforcement B. Substantive Provisions C. Similar Language, Different Results D. Differences in Legal Systems and Traditions: Civil Law's Certainty Versus Common Law's Flexibility III. RECENT DISPUTES: THE WTO TAKES ACTION TO SETTLE COMPETITION LAW CONFLICTS A. An Unpleasant Surprise: The Telmex Decision B. The Panel Remains Active: The Canadian Wheat Board Decision IV. HOW DISPUTES ARE RESOLVED A. The Historic Standard: Unilateral Enforcement B. Multilateral Agreements: A Multinational Competition Code? C. The Bilateral Agreement and Positive Comity D. Current U.S.-Mexico Framework: The Quintessential Soft Bilateral Agreement V. MEANINGFUL CONVERGENCE: A WAY FORWARD? VI. CONCLUSION I. INTRODUCTION In 1993, as Mexico was preparing to enter into the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), (2) it enacted the Ley Federal de Competencia Economica (L.F.C.E.), or the Federal Law Governing Economic Competition. (3) Prior to enacting the law, even though Mexico had a general ban on anticompetitive behavior, the heavy involvement of the federal government in all facets of the economy made the administration of the law ineffective. (4) While Mexico's new competition law is similar in language and structure to that of the United States, the two statutory schemes have significant differences in their application and enforcement. (5) The differences become particularly meaningful when the enormous volume of trade between the two countries is considered. (6) This Comment will highlight the manifestation of those differences and will suggest that Mexico and the United States should strengthen bilateral cooperation and coordination to resolve the impact those conflicts have on trade between the two countries instead of the current trend of relying upon the dispute panels of multilateral trade organizations, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), to resolve those conflicts. Part II of the Comment will explore key provisions of Mexican competition law. It will then highlight and analyze the differences in competition law between Mexico and the United States in regards to both countries' enforcement methodology, substantive law, economic culture, and their legal systems and traditions. Part III will illustrate how those conflicts have manifested themselves in trade relations between the two countries and how multilateral organizations are becoming more active in adjudicating competition law conflicts. It will do so by analyzing two WTO decisions involving competition law conflicts. One involves a significant conflict in the telecommunication industry between Mexico and the United States. The second involves an agricultural dispute between Canada and the United States that may impact Mexico-U.S. relations and further shows how active the WTO has become in not only settling conflicts in competition law but, in doing so, announcing legal principles and standards that will govern these conflicts. Part IV of the Comment will analyze the different dispute resolution mechanisms available to resolve competition law conflicts. It will analyze the strengths and weaknesses of unilateral, bilateral, and multilateral dispute mechanisms. Part V will suggest that Mexico and the United States should converge their competition laws through cooperation and coordination instead of relying upon multilateral organizations, like the WTO, to harmonize the conflicts. II. MEXICO'S COMPETITION LAW: BEHIND THE LANGUAGE While Mexico's 1917 Constitution had prohibited monopolistic practices, state monopolies, and tax exemptions under the terms established by the laws, (7) the prohibitions were difficult to enforce due to the complexity and politicization of competition law. (8) This changed on June 23, 1993, when Mexico's new antitrust law, the L. …
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".