The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) may have been replaced effective July 1, 2020 by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), but the rules of NAFTA remain alive and well in the halls of the enforcement agencies on both sides of the border.
On January 16, 2020, the United States Senate voted by an overwhelming majority to pass the implementing legislation for the United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement (USMCA)…
Continue Reading Modernizing NAFTA: The United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement
A tripartite agreement to save the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has just been reached. Since June 2017, the United States, Canada, and Mexico have been renegotiating NAFTA. After over a year of negotiations, late on Sunday night, September 30, 2018, Canada agreed to sign the revised agreement. That agreement is called the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA.
Continue Reading The New NAFTA: the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)
This article suggests steps you should take to survive the current trade war. We are now in a trade war regardless of the fact that Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin would rather we call it “a situation of trade disputes.” Trade disputes are what we had from approximately 1945 to 2017: a relatively stable world trading order in which differences over unfair trade practices were mostly worked out under existing remedies, such as the antidumping and countervailing duties regimes. What we have now is a period of escalating tit-for-tat tariff increases in which the old trading norms are being increasingly rejected, exempted, and undermined. And it is those very norms that kept us out of trade wars for the last 70 years.
Continue Reading Of Course You Know, This Means War: A Strategic Update on the Trump Trade War
We’ll give him this: President Trump has an ambitious trade agenda. This fire has many irons in it, and some of them are getting hot. Here at the Global Trade Law Blog, we’ve been following trade law for approximately 250 years and we’ve never seen anything like it in breadth or scale. The administration asks us to trust that there is a disruptive and innovative grand strategy behind it, but to some of us it looks (particularly in comparison to a mostly orderly international trading system in place since 1945) like madness. The question of whether “yet there is method in’t” may only be answered by future historians. For the time being, herewith is our snapshot of the Trump trade agenda, late June 2018 edition.
Continue Reading 5 Weird Things About the Trump Trade Agenda: Disruptive Innovation On a Global Scale
Boy, does it sound convincing when Mr. Trump states he will submit notice under section 2205 of NAFTA to let Mexico and Canada know that the U.S. will withdraw from NAFTA. The problem is, while the president-to-be is capable, we presume, of writing, signing, and sending (or possibly tweeting) such a notification, that notification would not have a legal significance because withdrawing from NAFTA, ab initio, is not a power accorded the President.
Continue Reading The Undoing Project – Why NAFTA Can’t be Undone, but Can be Re-Done
By Scott Maberry and Lisa Mays of Sheppard Mullin; and Vincent J. DeRose, Jennifer Radford, Greg Tereposky and Daniel Hohnstein of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP. Today’s Global Trade Law Blog is brought to you by a collaboration between the international trade group at Sheppard Mullin and the team at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP (BLG).
The United States and Canada enjoy a unique bilateral relationship. That relationship reflects a unique friendship, underpinned by shared geography, similar values, common interests, deep connections and powerful, multi-layered economic ties. The United States and Canada have both repeatedly confirmed their common commitment to strengthening the security of the border by working cooperatively to address threats early, facilitate trade, promote economic growth and jobs, integrate cross-border law enforcement, and bolster critical infrastructure and cyber-security.…
The ongoing presidential election in the United States has underscored a move against free trade by both of the main political parties. This article briefly summarizes some of the proven benefits of free trade and juxtaposes these with the stated positions of the Democratic and Republican parties in the pending presidential election. The article also examines, and disposes of, several of the key criticisms of the legal framework underpinning further trade integration. The article ends hopefully—historically, U.S. Presidents have abandoned anti-trade campaign rhetoric once in the Oval Office.
Continue Reading A Surge In Populism: Dangers To Transnational Trade In The Americas And Reasons For Hope