Implementation of U.S. Free Trade Agreements in Latin America Dispute Settlement Mechanisms as a Tool for Implementation

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edna Rammrez Robles ◽  
Marttn Molinuevo
Keyword(s):  
Latin America ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Free Trade Agreements ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanisms

scholarly journals Dispute Settlement for Labour Provisions in EU Free Trade Agreements: Rethinking Current Approaches

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 49-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Axel Marx ◽  
Franz Ebert ◽  
Nicolas Hachez
Keyword(s):  
Free Trade ◽  
Multinational Enterprises ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Free Trade Agreements ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Current State ◽  
Labour Standards ◽  
Sustainability Standards ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanisms

While labour provisions have been inserted in a number of EU free trade agreements (FTAs), extant clauses are widely perceived as ineffective. This article argues that there is a need to rethink the dispute settlement mechanisms related to labour provisions if their effectiveness is to be increased. It proceeds in three steps. First, we look at the current state of the art of labour provisions in EU FTAs in terms of legal design and practice and argue that the current arrangements are ill-equipped to foster compliance with labour standards. Second, we explore avenues to enhance the design of FTA labour provisions by reconsidering basic elements of the dispute settlement structure. Examining US FTA labour provisions, we highlight the importance of a formal complaint mechanism, on the one hand, and the availability of economic sanctions, on the other. Based on a review of existing practice, we contend, however, that these elements alone are not sufficient to effectively enforce FTA labour provisions. We argue that for FTA labour provisions to be effective, the current state-to-state model of dispute settlement needs to be complemented by a third-party-state dimension and that, additionally, there are good reasons to consider a third party–third party dispute settlement component. We ground these reflections in experiences with already existing instruments in other areas, namely investor-state dispute settlement and voluntary sustainability standards. Thirdly, we discuss options to better connect the dispute settlement mechanisms of FTA labour provisions to other international instruments for labour standards protection with a view to creating synergies and avoiding fragmentation between the different regimes. The focus here is on the International Labour Organization’s supervisory mechanism and the framework of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

scholarly journals What Do Trade Agreements Really Do?

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 73-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dani Rodrik
Keyword(s):  
Free Trade ◽  
Multinational Firms ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Market Access ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Free Trade Agreements ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
Pharmaceutical Companies ◽  
Nontariff Barriers ◽  
International Banks

Economists have a tendency to associate “free trade agreements” all too closely with “free trade.” They may be unaware of some of the new (and often problematic) beyond-the-boarder features of current trade agreements. As trade agreements have evolved and gone beyond import tariffs and quotas into regulatory rules and harmonization— intellectual property, health and safety rules, labor standards, investment measures, investor–state dispute settlement procedures, and others—they have become harder to fit into received economic theory. It is possible that rather than neutralizing the protectionists, trade agreements may empower a different set of rent-seeking interests and politically well-connected firms—international banks, pharmaceutical companies, and multinational firms. Trade agreements could still result in freer, mutually beneficial trade, through exchange of market access. They could result in the global upgrading of regulations and standards, for labor, say, or the environment. But they could also produce purely redistributive outcomes under the guise of “freer trade.” As trade agreements become less about tariffs and nontariff barriers at the border and more about domestic rules and regulations, economists might do well to worry more about the latter possibility.

Transparency and participatory aspects of investor-state dispute settlement in the EU ‘new wave’ trade agreements

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 781-800 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Lam ◽  
Güneş Ünüvar
Keyword(s):  
Free Trade ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Free Trade Agreements ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
Forum Shopping ◽  
New Wave ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis article scrutinizes the investment chapters in the new EU Free Trade Agreements from a transparency perspective. The article examines the claims that the dispute settlement mechanisms in the new treaties are sufficiently participatory and more transparent than their predecessors. Procedural standards related to confidentiality of proceedings shall be analysed in the context of existing transparency safeguards in investment arbitration. In addition to procedural guarantees of transparency, the article examines relevant substantive rules affecting participatory aspects of dispute settlement. Furthermore, the article discusses forum-shopping strategies of the parties in the field of investment-related disputes, including internal forum-shopping and parallel proceedings using different procedural mechanisms. In this context, lessons from other fields such as international commercial arbitration related to transparency (in cases in which public interest is present) are highlighted. The proposal for the establishment of an integrated, multilateral court for investment cases is also invoked.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document