Excerpts from the titled thread...
"Right now, Chapter 11 of the NAFTA agreement allows a private NAFTA foreign investor to sue the U.S. government if the investor believes a state or federal law damages the investor’s NAFTA business."
"Under Chapter 11, NAFTA establishes a tribunal that conducts a behind closed-doors "trial" to decide the case according to the legal principals established by either the World Bank’s International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes or the UN’s Commission for International Trade Law. If the decision is adverse to the U.S., the NAFTA tribunal can impose its decision as final, trumping U.S. law, even as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. laws can be effectively overturned and the NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunal can impose millions or billions of dollars in fines on the U.S. government, to be paid ultimately by the U.S. taxpayer."
*********** Like many contracts and/or agreements, insurance policies etc., NAFTA has a suggested arbitration first for dispute resolution, however, does not preclude taking one's claim into a court of law. * From what I've read and understand, the country in which a dispute has occurred would naturally be the starting point, and if not settled, could eventually end up in a court of law in that same country. * A lawsuit would have to be filed in the country where the dispute occurred. * For starters, the preferred, and most economical and speediest method would be arbitration, because some courts, especially in the U.S. might not take a case, if arbitration is written into an agreement, such as the case in NAFTA.. A dispute would first have to heard in arbitration. * NAFTA has a time limit or agreement/staute of limitations to file a disputed claim. * Disputes are heard by a panel of three appointed arbitrators. * The Secretariate of each involved country (usually two) appoint one arbitrator. * The third arbitrator is agreed upon by the two parties in the dispute. * The three panel of arbitrators hear the dispute and can dismiss, or settle. If the dispute is not settled to a persons liking, they can then take their decision into a court within the country where the dispute occurred. * Because trade usually involves goods and commodities, NAFTA does not exclude a country's criminal and/or civil statutes. To avoid court precedential rulings, IMO, I would imagine NAFTA would want to settle disputes in an equitable manner to not have the agreement mired in litigation. * Would there be predjudice or conflict of interest in a foreign court of law...your guess is as good as mine. IMO, I would trust Canadian and U.S. courts before Mexican law. The downside of Chapter 11: "Another contentious issue is the impact of "Chapter 11", which allows corporations to sue "Parties" (the definition of which, includes governments) in the NAFTA region for compensation when actions taken by those Parties have adversely affected their investments. This chapter gives corporations the power to enforce their rights, regardless of national, state and local sovereignty." "This chapter has been invoked in cases where governments have passed laws or regulations with intent to protect their constiuents, that also impact a corporation's bottom line. Language in the chapter defining its scope states that it cannot be used to "prevent a Party from providing a service or performing a function such as law enforcement, correctional services, income security or insurance, social security or insurance, social welfare, public education, public training, health, and child care, in a manner that is not inconsistent with this Chapter. " "This chapter does not, however, appear to specifically protect or observe the potential legitimacy of environmental laws enacted to protect; it seems to indicate that NAFTA litigation interprets all such laws solely in terms of their financial impact." "For example Methanex, a Canadian corporation, filed a US$970 million suit against the United States, claiming that a Californian ban on MTBE, a substance that had found its way into many wells in the state, was hurtful to the corporation's sales of methanol. " "In another case Metalclad, an American corporation, was awarded US$15.6 million from Mexico after the latter passed regulations banning the hazardous waste landfill it intended to construct in El Llano, Aguascalientes." "Further, it has been argued that the chapter benefits the interests of Canadian and American corporations disproportionately more than Mexican businesses, which often lack the resources to pursue a suit against the much wealthier states." "It has been a longtime fear of some Canadians that this provision gives large U.S. companies too much power. There was one case where a natural gas company in Nova Scotia which pumped from Sable Island wanted to sell cheaper gas to residents in the neighboring New Brunswick (both Canadian provinces), but threats of a lawsuit over Chapter 11 stopped these plans in their tracks." IMO, like many other hastely passed bills and acts, the complex provisions of NAFTA was not debated enough by our lawmakers. Remember, NAFTA was signed into law by William Jefferson Clinton, the 42nd president of the United States, with the support of a democrat controlled congress. Moreover, to many in congress remained to silent, and let the NAFTA wind blow where it will. Like any agreement, NAFTA can be revisited and retuned, or scrapped...which I doubt.