CUSMA的制度设计:相对于北美自由贸易协定的改进还是逆转?

Q4 Social Sciences
Antonio Ortiz Mena L. N., Jorge A. Schiavon
{"title":"CUSMA的制度设计:相对于北美自由贸易协定的改进还是逆转?","authors":"Antonio Ortiz Mena L. N., Jorge A. Schiavon","doi":"10.7202/1090918ar","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article we comparatively analyze the institutional design of the 2020 Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) vis-à-vis the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In the modernization of NAFTA into CUSMA, three strategies were employed: updating, upgrading, and adjusting the institutional design. We explore whether the implementation of these strategies provide a better governance of free trade and investment in the region compared to NAFTA. To do so, we conduct an in-depth evaluation of both agreements. Our central argument is that there were both progress and reversals in several areas: for example, the strength and powers of dispute settlement mechanisms, an improvement in the implementation of the working groups, changes in the flexibility or rigidity of its architecture depending on the sector analyzed, among many others. The article is comprised of three sections, each of them dealing with one of the three strategies under scrutiny. Finally, based on the central findings, we provide some public policy recommendations to strengthen the governance of free trade and investment in North America through the CUSMA.","PeriodicalId":39264,"journal":{"name":"Quebec Journal of International Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The institutional design of CUSMA: Improvement or reversal vis-à-vis NAFTA?\",\"authors\":\"Antonio Ortiz Mena L. N., Jorge A. Schiavon\",\"doi\":\"10.7202/1090918ar\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this article we comparatively analyze the institutional design of the 2020 Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) vis-à-vis the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In the modernization of NAFTA into CUSMA, three strategies were employed: updating, upgrading, and adjusting the institutional design. We explore whether the implementation of these strategies provide a better governance of free trade and investment in the region compared to NAFTA. To do so, we conduct an in-depth evaluation of both agreements. Our central argument is that there were both progress and reversals in several areas: for example, the strength and powers of dispute settlement mechanisms, an improvement in the implementation of the working groups, changes in the flexibility or rigidity of its architecture depending on the sector analyzed, among many others. The article is comprised of three sections, each of them dealing with one of the three strategies under scrutiny. Finally, based on the central findings, we provide some public policy recommendations to strengthen the governance of free trade and investment in North America through the CUSMA.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39264,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quebec Journal of International Law\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quebec Journal of International Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7202/1090918ar\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quebec Journal of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7202/1090918ar","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文对比分析了2020年《加美墨协定》(CUSMA)与1994年《北美自由贸易协定》(NAFTA)的制度设计-à-vis。在将NAFTA现代化为CUSMA的过程中,采用了三种策略:制度设计的更新、升级和调整。我们将探讨与北美自由贸易协定相比,这些战略的实施是否能更好地管理该地区的自由贸易和投资。为此,我们对这两项协议进行了深入的评估。我们的中心论点是,在几个领域既有进展也有倒退:例如,争端解决机制的强度和权力、工作组执行情况的改善、根据所分析的部门而改变其结构的灵活性或刚性,等等。这篇文章由三个部分组成,每个部分都涉及到所审查的三种策略中的一种。最后,基于中心研究结果,我们提出了一些公共政策建议,以通过CUSMA加强北美自由贸易和投资的治理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The institutional design of CUSMA: Improvement or reversal vis-à-vis NAFTA?
In this article we comparatively analyze the institutional design of the 2020 Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) vis-à-vis the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In the modernization of NAFTA into CUSMA, three strategies were employed: updating, upgrading, and adjusting the institutional design. We explore whether the implementation of these strategies provide a better governance of free trade and investment in the region compared to NAFTA. To do so, we conduct an in-depth evaluation of both agreements. Our central argument is that there were both progress and reversals in several areas: for example, the strength and powers of dispute settlement mechanisms, an improvement in the implementation of the working groups, changes in the flexibility or rigidity of its architecture depending on the sector analyzed, among many others. The article is comprised of three sections, each of them dealing with one of the three strategies under scrutiny. Finally, based on the central findings, we provide some public policy recommendations to strengthen the governance of free trade and investment in North America through the CUSMA.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信