International trade tribunals seen trumping state laws

[Robbien]

Source: Associated Press

MONTPELIER, Vt.—A Canadian company wants to open a new plant in Claremont, N.H., to bottle fresh water from a source in Stockbridge, Vt. But if Vermont wants to limit how much water the company takes, it may run afoul of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

States around the country are growing increasingly worried about the threats posed to their laws and regulations by the secret tribunals that resolve disputes in international trade. Experts say everything from environmental rules to the licensing of nurses and other professionals could be affected.

. . .

In one famous case, California sought to ban the gasoline additive MTBE in 1999 after the chemical was found to have contaminated groundwater. A Canadian firm called Methanex filed a $970 million claim with a NAFTA tribunal, saying the figure represented the money it stood to lose from lost sales in the state.

Methanex lost on that one.

One trade dispute in which a private company won targeted the Mexican state of San Luis Potosi and the town of Guadalcazar, which wanted to shut down a toxic waste dump that had been bought by a U.S. company, Metalclad. Metalclad argued it had won permission from the Mexican federal government to reopen the dump and resume using it.





Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2007/12/02/international_trade_tribunals_seen_trumping_state_laws/

[robinlynne]

1. 0h hell NO!

[1monster]

2. SECRET TRIBUNALS????? SECRET!!!!

Thank GHWB for that "new world order." :sarcasm:

[Fiendish Thingy]

3. um, NAFTA happened on Bill Clinton's watch n/t

[fasttense]

4. It was merely changed during Clinton's terms in office.

The first bush was the one who signed the original NAFTA give away.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104566.html

"NAFTA was initially pursued by corporate interest in the United States and Canada supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The three countries signed NAFTA in December 1992, subject to ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition in all three countries, especially among intellectuals who stated that it was an ill-conceived initiative. In the United States, NAFTA was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative priority in 1993. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC. After intense political debate and the negotiation of these side agreements, the U.S. House passed NAFTA by 234-200 (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor, 156 Democrats, 43 Republicans, and 1 independent against).<5> and the U.S. Senate passed it by 61-38<6>"

[Spazito]

5. NAFTA harms the people of Canada, US and Mexico while enriching...

and rewarding rapacious corporations.

These types of actions by corporations nominally registered in Canada, the US or Mexico (actually multinational companies), usually come under Chapter 11:

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) includes an array of new corporate investment rights and protections that are unprecedented in scope and power. NAFTA allows corporations to sue the national government of a NAFTA country in secret arbitration tribunals if they feel that a regulation or government decision affects their investment in conflict with these new NAFTA rights. If a corporation wins, the taxpayers of the "losing" NAFTA nation must foot the bill. This extraordinary attack on governments' ability to regulate in the public interest is a key element of the proposed NAFTA expansion called the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).

NAFTA's investment chapter (Chapter 11) contains a variety of new rights and protections for investors and investments in NAFTA countries. If a company believes that a NAFTA government has violated these new investor rights and protections, it can initiate a binding dispute resolution process for monetary damages before a trade tribunal, offering none of the basic due process or openness guarantees afforded in national courts. These so-called "investor-to-state" cases are litigated in the special international arbitration bodies of the World Bank and the United Nations, which are closed to public participation, observation and input. A three-person panel composed of professional arbitrators listens to arguments in the case, with powers to award an unlimited amount of taxpayer dollars to corporations whose NAFTA investor privileges and rights they judge to have been impacted.

http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta/CH__11/

Here is a link that lists all the actions taken by various companies against Canada, the US or Mexico up until 2004, it is quite an interesting read, imo (it is a pdf file):

Table of NAFTA Chapter 11 Investor-State Cases and Claims (Feb 2005)

http://www.citizen.org/documents/Ch11cases_chart.pdf



It is well past time, imo, for NAFTA to be scrapped, it only takes a 6 months notice to withdraw for a country to remove itself from NAFTA, and a REAL Fair Trade agreement to take it's place. Trade is going to occur between countries and a fair agreement makes sense but that agreement MUST be for the citizens of those respective countries and NOT a license to pillage poorer countries, break unions, etc, as is the case with NAFTA.

[DCKit]

6. They didn't bother with any environmental protections?

Scrap the bitch.