1 North American Free Trade Agreement, Dec. 17, 1992, ch. 20, 32 ILM 289 & 605 (1993) [hereinafter NAFTA]; North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, Sept. 14, 1993, pt. V.32ILM 1480(1993) [hereinafter NAAEC]; North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation, Sept. 14, 1993, pt. V, 32 ILM 1499 (1993) [hereinafter NAALC].

2 NAFTA, supra note 1, Arts. 1102, 1103, 1105, 1110.

3 Id., Arts. 1116, 1117, 1134, 1135. The arbitration is under the rules of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes or the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, as modified by Chapter 11.Id., Art. 1120.

4 The numbers in this section are based on the lists of claims maintained online by the U.S. Department of State at <http://www.state.gov/s/l/c3439.htm>, International Trade Canada at <http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/tna-nac/NAFTA-en.asp>, Mexico’s Secretaría de Economia at <http://www.economia.gob.mx/index.jsp?P=2259>, and Todd Weiler at <http://www.naftalaw.org>. The Waste Management claim, see infra note 6, which was first rejected by a tribunal on procedural grounds and then refiled, counts as one claim here, as do the more than one hundred claims arising from the U.S. decision to prohibit imports of cattle from Canada after the discovery of mad cow disease in Alberta. All of the decisions cited in this section are available through these Web sites.

5 S.D. Myers, Inc. v. Canada, Partial Award (Nov. 13, 2000), Second Partial Award (Oct. 21, 2002), Final Award (Dec. 30, 2002) (discussed in case report by Charles H. Brower II at 98 AJIL 339 (2004)); Pope & Talbot Inc. v. Canada, Award on the Merits (Apr. 10, 2001), Award on Damages (May 31, 2002) (discussed in case report by David A. Gantz at 97 AJIL 937 (2003)). Canada settled with Ethyl after the tribunal found jurisdiction in Ethyl Corp. v. Canada, Preliminary Award on Jurisdiction (June 24, 1998) (discussed in case report by Alan C. Swan at 94 AJIL 159 (1999)).

6 Mondev Int’l Ltd. v. United States, Award (Oct. 11, 2002) (discussed in case report by William, S. Dodge at 98 AJIL 155 (2004)Google Scholar); ADF Group Inc. v. United States, Award (Jan. 9, 2003); Loewen Group Inc. v. United States, Award (June 26, 2003) (discussed in case report by William, S. Dodge at 98 AJIL 155 (2004)Google Scholar); Methanex Corp. v. United States, Final Award (Aug. 3, 2005).

The government of Mexico has a mixed record, winning three and losing two through the end of 2005, each time against U.S. investors. See Azinian v. Mexico, Award (Nov. 1, 1999); Waste Management, Inc. v. Mexico, Award (Apr. 30, 2004); GAMI Investments, Inc. v. Mexico, Final Award (Nov. 15, 2004) (victories); Metalclad Corp. v. Mexico, Award (Aug. 30, 2000) (discussed in case report by William, S. Dodge at 95 AJIL 910 (2001)Google Scholar); Feldman v. Mexico, Award (Dec. 16, 2002) (losses). In January 2006, Mexico won another decision, its first against Canadian investors. Int’l Thunderbird Gaming Corp. v. Mexico, Award (Jan. 26, 2006).

7 See supra note 6.

8 NAFTA, supra 1, Art. 1136(6); [New York] Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, June 10, 1958, 330 UNTS 38, 21 UST 2517; Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, Jan. 30, 1975, 14 ILM 336 (1975).

9 Guillermo, Aguilar Alvarez & William, W. Park, The New Face of Investment Arbitration, 28 Yale J. Int’l L. 365, 374–75 (2003)Google Scholar.

10 Mexico v. Metalclad Corp., 2001 B.C.S.C. 644 (B.C. Sup. Ct. May 2, 2001).

11 William, S. Dodge, Case Report: Metalclad Corporation v. Mexico, 95 AJIL 910, 916 (2001)Google Scholar.

12 Feldman, supra note 6.

13 International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 1-9, §2.

14 Mexico v. Feldman Karpa, O.J. No. 5070, para. 66 (Ont. S.C.J. 2005).

15 Canada v. S.D. Myers, Inc., 2004 F.C. 38 (Fed. Ct. 2004).

16 See Sharma, Rajeev & Goodman, Adam, Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds NAFTA Chapter 11 Award, ASIL Insights (Feb. 2005)Google Scholar, at<http://www.asil.org/insights/2005/02/insight040214.html> (noting that the Ontario Court of Appeals is the most influential court in Canada after the Canadian Supreme Court).

17 Loewen Group, Inc. v. United States, Decision on Respondent’s Request for a Supplementary Decision, para. 23 (Sept. 6, 2004).

18 9 U.S.C. §12(2000).

19 Loewen v. United States, No. 04-2151, mem. op., at 5 (D.D.C. Oct. 31, 2005).

20 Metalclad, supra note 6, para. 103.

21 Mexicov. Metalclad Corp., 2001 BCSC 664, para. 99 (B.C. Sup. Ct. May 2, 2001) (noting that the tribunal’s definition of expropriation would include “a legitimate rezoning of property”).

22 See, e.g., Been, Vicki & Joel, C. Beauvais, The Global Fifth Amendment? NAFTA’s Investment Protections and the Misguided Quest for an International “Regulatory Takings” Doctrine, 78 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 30 (2003)Google Scholar; Greider, William, The Right and US Trade Law: Invalidating the 20th Century, Nation (Oct. 15, 2001)Google Scholar, at <http:www.thenation.com/doc/20011015/greider>.

23 Methanex, supra note 6, at IV-D-4.

24 NAFTA, supra note 1, Art. 1126(2).

25 In re Request for Consolidation by Mexico of die Claims in Corn Products Int’l, Inc. v. Mexico and Archer Daniels Midland Co. and Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc. v. Mexico, Order (Consolidation Trib. May 20, 2005).

26 Id at .,para. 6.

27 Id, paras. 7-9.

28 Id, para. 12.

29 Id, paras. 16-17.

30 In re Request for Consolidation by the United States of the Claims in Canfor Corp. v United States, Tembec et al. v. United States, and Terminal Forest Products Ltd. v. United States, Order (Consolidation Trib. Sept. 7, 2005).

31 Id, paras. 73-76.

32 Id., paras. 78 - 80, 135. The tribunal said that “concerns over confidentiality” would be relevant only in “exceptional cases where consolidation would defeat efficiency of process or would infringe the principle of due process.” Id., para. 138.

33 Id, paras. 126-33.

34 Id, para. 220.

35 E.g., Dodge, supra note 11, at 918; Susan, D. Franck, The Legitimacy Crisis in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Privatizing Public International Law Through Inconsistent Decisions, 73 Fordham L. Rev. 1521, 1617–20 (2005)Google Scholar.

36 The claimants apparently intend to argue that Article 1102 requires the United States not to discriminate against Canadians even with respect to their investments in Canada.

37 Treaty Relating to the Utilization of the Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande, Feb. 3, 1944, 59 Stat. 1219, 9 Bevans 1166. Although the claimants’ notice of arbitration is not on the official government sites, it is available at <http://www.naftaclaims.com/texas_water_claims.htm>.

38 Methanex, supra note 6, at V-2.

39 Free Trade Commission, Notes of Interpretation of Certain Chapter 11 Provisions (July 31, 2001), at <http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/tna-nac/NAFTA-Interpr-en.asp>.

40 NAFTA, supra note 1, Art. 1904(2), (3). That means, for review of U.S. agency determinations, the use of the “substantial evidence” standard, under which a tribunal is bound to affirm the determination unless it finds it “to be unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 19 USC 1516a(b)(l)(B); see NAFTA, supra note 1, Annex 1911 (definition of “standard of review”).

41 These numbers are drawn from the Web site of the NAFTA secretariat, <http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org>, which is also where the Chapter 19 decisions cited in this section can be found.

42 See, e.g., In re Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada, No. USA-CDA-2002-1904-09 (Aug. 12, 2004; Apr. 18, 2005); In re Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Canada, No. USA-CDA- 00-1904-11 (Oct. 19, 2004; Apr. 29, 2005); In re Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada, No. USA-CDA-2003- 1904-06 (June 7, 2005; Dec. 12, 2005).

43 See Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, No. USA-CDA-2005-1904-01 (challenging Commerce Department administrative review of CVD determination), No. USA-CDA-2005-1904-03 (challenging ITC implementation of WTO decision on material injury), No. USA-CDA-2005-1904-04 (challenging Commerce Department implementation of WTO decision on AD).

44 Brevetti, Rossella, Lumber Industry Files Federal Court Challenge to Constitutionality of Chapter 19, 22 Int’l Trade Rep. (BNA) 1477 (Sept. 15, 2005)Google Scholar.

45 See Pauwelyn, Joost, The US-Canada Softwood Lumber Dispute Reaches a Climax, ASIL Insights (Nov. 30, 2005)Google Scholar, at <http://www.asil.Org/insights/2005/l l/insights051129.html>.

46 Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64, 118 (1804).

47 In re Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, No. USA-CDA-2002-1904-02 (June 9, 2005).

48 NAFTA, supra note 1, Art. 1904(8).

49 In re Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, No. USA-CDA-2002-1904-03 (Aug. 13, 2003; June 7, 2004; Dec. 1, 2004; May 23, 2005; Oct. 5, 2005).

50 In re Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, No. USA-CDA-2002-1904-07 (Aug. 31, 2004).

51 NAFTA, supra note 1, Annex 1904.13(3).

52 In re Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, No. ECC-2004-1904-01-USA, Opinion and Order, at 44-45 (Extraordinary Challenge Comm. Aug. 10, 2005) (quoting Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744 (1985)).

53 Id. at 45-48.

54 Id. at 6 -7 (citing NAFTA, supra note 1, Art. 1904).

55 In the SoftwoodLumberca.se, the ECC found that the panel manifestly exceeded its powers by failing to apply the appropriate standard of review on one issue, but that the error did not materially affect its decision because the error applied to only one component of a subsidiary finding. Id. at 43. Similarly, the first ECC decision, in 2003, stated that the panel had failed to follow the better-reasoned approach of the panel’s dissenting member, but that even if the panel erred by failing to apply the substantial evidence standard correctly, its failure did not rise to the level of manifestly exceeding its powers, and “above all,” nothing in its conduct threatened the integrity of the process. In re Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico, No. ECC-2000-1904-01-USA, Opinion and Order, at 6 (Extraordinary Challenge Comm. Oct. 30, 2003). Most strikingly, a subsequent, October 2004 ECC decision found that even though a panel’s failure to apply the correct standard of review did materially affect its decision in that case, the mistake still did not threaten the integrity of the panel review process. The committee suggested that for a decision to threaten the integrity of the process, the panel would have to include a biased member, to conduct its own fact-finding inquiries, or to completely fail to follow domestic law. In re Pure Magnesium from Canada, No. ECC-2003-1904-01-USA, Decision and Order, at 8 (Extraordinary Challenge Comm. Oct. 5, 2004).

56 NAAEC, supra note 1, Art. 5.

57 Id, Art. 14(1).

58 Id., Art. 14(2).

59 Id, Art. 15.

60 These and the other numbers in this section are drawn from the CEC Web site, <http://www.cec.org/citizen/index.cfm?varlan=english>, where one can also find the decisions cited in this section.

61 Of the twenty-two requests for factual records, three others are pending with the council, and one was withdrawn by the submitter.

62 The practice of authorizing factual records different from those requested by the secretariat has been criticized as inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the NAAEC. See David, L. Markell, The CEC Citizen Submissions Process: On or off Course? in Greening Nafta: The North American Commission For Environmental Cooperation 274 (David, L. Markell & John, H. Knox eds., 2003)Google Scholar.

63 ALCA-Iztapalapa II, No. SEM-03-004.

64 Lake Chapala II, No. SEM-03-003; Quebec Automobiles, No. SEM-04-007.

65 See Tarahumara, No. SEM-00-006, Factual Record (July 26, 2005).

66 Id. at 83-84.

67 Four factual records have concerned Canada, and the Tarahumara factual record was the sixth regarding Mexico.

68 CEC Council Res. 05-04 (Apr. 1, 2005), at <http://www.cec.org/files/pdf/sem/04-6-Resolution_en.pdf>.

69 Migratory Birds, No. SEM-99-002, Factual Record (Apr. 24, 2003); see Wold, Chris, Ritchie, Lucus, Scott, Deborah, & Clark, Matthew, The Inadequacy of the Citizen Submission Process of Articles 14 & 15 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, 26 Loyola LA. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 415, 425–29 (2004)Google Scholar.

70 Coal-Fired Power Plants, No. SEM-04-005.

71 NAALC, supra note 1, Art. 3.

72 Id., Art. 16(3) (emphasis added).

73 Id., Arts. 21-23, 29.

74 Id, Arts. 23(2), 49.

75 Id., Art. 27(1).

76 Of the thirty-three labor submissions to date, twenty-one have concerned Mexico, and all but two of those have been filed with the United States. Another ten have been directed against the United States, eight of which have been filed with Mexico. Because the labor submissions are not received by the Commission for Labor Cooperation, the organization created by the labor side agreement, that commission’s Web site does not keep a record of them. Instead, they are listed on the Web site of the U.S. Labor Department’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs, at <http://www.dol.gov/ilab/programs/nao/status.htm>.

77 See Schurtman, Monica, Los “Jonkeados” and the NAALC: The Autotrim/Customtrim Case and Its Implications for Submissions Under the NAFTA Labor Side Agreement, 22 Ariz. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 291 (2005)Google Scholar.

78 Report of Review of U.S. NAO Submission No. 2003-01 (Aug. 3, 2004), at <http://www.dol.gov/ilab/media/reports/nao/submissions/Sub2003-01.pdf> .

79 Review of Public Communication CAN 2003-1 (Apr. 12, 2005), at <http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/lp/spila/ialc/pcnaalc/pdf/01 pdf.shtml>.

80 Public Report of Review of Mexican NAO Submission No. 2001-01 (Nov. 19, 2004), at <http://www.dol. gov/ilab/media/reports/nao/ny_mexico_sror.htm>.