Us And Mexico Free Trade Agreement

December 20th, 2020 2:34 am

The Trump administration`s office proposed the USMCA citing new measures for digital commerce, strengthening the protection of trade secrets and adapting the rules of origin of automobiles among the benefits of the trade agreement. [112] Nevertheless, NAFTA has been a recurring objective in the broader free trade debate. President Donald J. Trump says it undermines U.S. jobs and manufacturing, and in December 2019, his administration finalized an updated version of the pact with Canada and Mexico, now known as the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). The USMCA received broad support from all parties on Capitol Hill and came into force on July 1, 2020. The USMCA will have an impact on the way Member States negotiate future free trade agreements. Section 32.10 requires USMCA countries to notify USMCA members three months in advance if they plan to enter into free trade negotiations with non-market economies. Article 32.10 authorizes USMCA countries to review new free trade agreements. It is generally speculated that Article 32.10 targets China. [56] In fact, a senior White House official said of the USMCA agreement: “We were very concerned about China`s efforts to undermine the U.S. position by reaching agreements with others.” [57] According to a 2012 study on TARIFF reductions on NAFTA, trade with the United States and Mexico increased by only 11% in Canada, compared to a 41% increase in the United States and 118% in Mexico. [63]:3 In addition, the United States and Mexico benefited more from the rate reduction, with an increase in social benefits of 0.08% and 1.31%, with Canada recording a decrease of 0.06%.

[63]:Chapter 19 of NAFTA was a trade litigation mechanism that subjects anti-dumping and compensatory tariff (AD/CVD) rules to binational panel review or conventional judicial review. [58] In the United States, for example, review of decisions by authorities imposing anti-dumping and countervailing duties is generally referred to the U.S. International Court of Commerce, a Section III court. However, the NAFTA parties were given the opportunity to appeal decisions against binational bodies made up of five citizens of the two NAFTA countries. [58] Participants were generally lawyers with experience in international commercial law. Since NAFTA did not contain physical provisions for AD/CVD, the panel was tasked with determining whether the final decisions of the agencies to which AD/CVD were parties were consistent with domestic national law.

Comments are closed.