Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T04:45:20.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

NAFTA 2.0: The Greenest Trade Agreement Ever?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2019

NOEMIE LAURENS ,
ZACHARY DOVE ,
JEAN FREDERIC MORIN Open the ORCID record for JEAN FREDERIC MORIN [Opens in a new window]  and
SIKINA JINNAH
NOEMIE LAURENS
Affiliation:
Laval University, Canada
ZACHARY DOVE
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Cruz, USA
JEAN FREDERIC MORIN*
Affiliation:
Laval University, Canada
SIKINA JINNAH
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Cruz, USA
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The renegotiation of what US President Trump called ‘the worst trade deal ever’ has resulted in the most detailed environmental chapter in any trade agreement in history. The USMCA mentions dozens of environmental issues that its predecessor, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), overlooked, and in line with contemporary US practice, brings the vast majority of environmental provisions into the core of the agreement, and subjects these provisions to a sanction-based dispute settlement mechanism. It also jettisons two controversial NAFTA measures potentially harmful to the environment. However, this paper argues that the USMCA only makes limited contributions to environmental protection. It primarily replicates most of the environmental provisions included in recent agreements, and only introduces three unprecedented environmental provisions. Moreover, it avoids important issues such as climate change, it does not mention the precautionary principle, and it scales back some environmental provisions related to multilateral environmental agreements.

Type
Snipings
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , October 2019 , pp. 659 - 677
Copyright
Copyright © Noemie Laurens et al. 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The rubric ‘Snipings’ is intended for contributions which, while rigorous, offer early analyses of issues of immediate policy relevance for the multilateral trading system. They would normally be shorter and possibly be less extensively documented than our standard articles with a view to stimulating current debates. They are subject to standard, albeit expedited, refereeing procedures. Further submissions under this heading are welcome.

References

Ackerman, F., Béjar, A. A., Laxer, G., and Beachy, B. (2018), NAFTA 2.0: For People or Polluters? Council of Canadians, Greenpeace Mexico, Sierra Club.Google Scholar
Allee, T. and Elsig, M. (2016), ‘Are the Contents of International Treaties Copied-and-Pasted? Evidence from Preferential Trade Agreements’, NCCR Trade Working Paper 8, World Trade Institute, Bern, http://tinyurl.com/yybevtkn (accessed 1 February 2019).Google Scholar
CEC (2017), Characterization and Management of Food Loss and Waste in North America, Commission for Environmental Cooperation, https://tinyurl.com/y47d85hb (accessed 16 February 2019).Google Scholar
Charnovitz, S. (1994), ‘The NAFTA Environmental Side Agreement: Implications for Environmental Cooperation, Trade Policy, and American Treatymaking’, Temple International and Comparative Law Journal, 8: 257.Google Scholar
Das, K., Asselt, H., Droege, S., and Mehling, M. (2018), ‘Making the International Trade System Work for Climate Change: Assessing the Options’, Climate Strategies.Google Scholar
Davis, B. (2017), ‘US Bid to Exit Nafta Arbitration Panels Draws Ire From Businesses’, Wall Street Journal, 22 August 2017, http://tinyurl.com/yxd6juja (accessed 9 February 2019).Google Scholar
Dür, A, Baccini, L., and Manfred, E. (2014), ‘The Design of International Trade Agreements: Introducing a New Dataset’, The Review of International Organizations, 9(3): 353–375.Google Scholar
Economía de Secretaría (2017), ‘Prioridades de México en las negociaciones para la modernización del Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte’, http://tinyurl.com/y5t5buwh (accessed 1 February 2019).Google Scholar
Esty, D. C. (2001), ‘Bridging the Trade–Environment Divide’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15: 113Google Scholar
Gallagher, K. P. (2004), Free Trade and the Environment: Mexico, NAFTA, and Beyond, Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Canada, Global Affairs (2017), ‘Address by Foreign Affairs Minister on the Modernization of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)’, 14 August 2017, http://tinyurl.com/ybuuptvj (accessed 1 February 2019).Google Scholar
Hughes, L. (2010), ‘Eastern Canadian Crude Oil Supply and Its Implications for Regional Energy Security’, Energy Policy, 38(6): 2692–2699.Google Scholar
Jinnah, S. (2011), ‘Strategic Linkages: The Evolving Role of Trade Agreements in Global Environmental Governance’, Journal of Environment and Development, 20(2): 191–215.Google Scholar
Jinnah, S. and Lindsay, A. (2016), ‘Diffusion through Issue Linkage: Environmental Norms in U.S. Trade Agreements’, Global Environmental Politics, 16(3): 41–61.Google Scholar
Jinnah, S. and Morgera, E. (2013), ‘Environmental Provisions in US and EU Trade Agreements: A Comparative Analysis’, Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 22(3): 224–339.Google Scholar
Jinnah, S. and Morin, J.-F. (2020), Greening through Trade: How American Trade Policy Has Promoted Environmental Protection Abroad, Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jo, H. and Namgung, H. (2012), ‘Dispute Settlement Mechanisms in Preferential Trade Agreements: Democracy, Boilerplates, and the Multilateral Trade Regime’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 56(6): 1041–1068.Google Scholar
Kaufman, A. C. (2019), ‘Trump's NAFTA Revision Ignores Climate Change, Bolsters Oil And Gas Industries’, Huffington Post, 10 January 2019, www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/nafta-environment_n_5bb24486e4b0c7575967b819.Google Scholar
Knox, J. H. (2013), ‘Fixing the CEC Submissions Procedure: Are the 2012 Revisions up to the Task?’, Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal, 7: 81–107.Google Scholar
Laxer, G. (2018), Escaping Mandatory Oil Exports: Why Canada Needs to Dump NAFTA's Energy Proportionality Rule. The Council of Canadians.Google Scholar
Laxer, G. and Dillon, J. (2008), Over a Barrel: Exiting from NAFTA's Proportionality Clause. Canada: Parkland Institute.Google Scholar
Lilliston, B. (2018), New NAFTA’ Continues Damaging Climate Legacy (IATP Brief), www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2018-10/2018_10_NewNAFTA_Analysis_ClimatePolicy.pdf.Google Scholar
Lynch, D. J. (2019), ‘Pelosi Demands Changes to Trump's Trade Deal with Mexico, Canada, Business’, Washington Post, 2 April 2019, https://tinyurl.com/y3yyexvv.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (2004), ‘Privatizing Conditions of Production: Trade Agreements as Neoliberal Environmental Governance’, Geoforum, 35(3): 327–341.Google Scholar
Mertins-Kirkwood, H. (2018), ‘Updated NAFTA Deal a Profound Failure for Climate Action’, Behind the Numbers Blog, 12 October 2018, http://behindthenumbers.ca/2018/10/12/updated-nafta-deal-a-profound-failure-for-climateaction/.Google Scholar
Morin, J.-F., Dür, A., and Lechner, L. (2018), ‘Mapping the Trade and Environment Nexus: Insights from a New Data Set’, Global Environmental Politics, 18(1): 122–139.Google Scholar
Morin, J.-F., Pauwelyn, J., and Hollway, J. (2017), ‘The Trade Regime as a Complex Adaptive System: Exploration and Exploitation of Environmental Norms in Trade Agreements’, Journal of International Economic Law, 20(2): 365–390.Google Scholar
Morin, J.-F. and Rochette, M. (2017), ‘Transatlantic Convergence of Preferential Trade Agreements Environmental Clauses’, Business and Politics, 19(4): 621–658.Google Scholar
Morin, J.-F. and Jinnah, S. (2018), ‘The Untapped Potential of Preferential Trade Agreements for Climate Governance’, Environmental Politics, 27(3): 541–565.Google Scholar
Nolan, M. (2016), ‘Challenges to the Credibility of the Investor–State Arbitration System’, American University Business Law Review, 5: 429–446.Google Scholar
Peinhardt, C., Kim, A. A., and Pavon-Harr, V. (2019), ‘Deforestation and the United States–Peru Trade Promotion Agreement’, Global Environmental Politics, 19(4): 53–76.Google Scholar
Puig, S. and Kinnear, M. (2010), ‘NAFTA Chapter Eleven at Fifteen: Contributions to a Systemic Approach in Investment Arbitration’, ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, 25(2): 225–267.Google Scholar
Shaffer, G., Elsig, M., and Pollack, A. M. (2017), ‘US Threats to the WTO Appellate Body’, SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3087524, Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY.Google Scholar
Sinclair, S. (2018), Canada's Track Record Under NAFTA Chapter 11: North American Investor–State Disputes to January 2018, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.Google Scholar
Tallberg, J. (2002), ‘Paths to Compliance: Enforcement, Management, and the European Union’, International Organization, 56(3): 609–643.Google Scholar
Tankersley, J. (2019), ‘Trump Loves the New NAFTA: Congress Doesn't’, New York Times, 6 February 2019, https://tinyurl.com/y9jez64r.Google Scholar
Tienhaara, K. (2018), ‘Regulatory Chill in a Warming World: The Threat to Climate Policy Posed by Investor–State Dispute Settlement’, Transnational Environmental Law, 7(2): 229–250.Google Scholar
Tienhaara, K. (2019), ‘NAFTA 2.0: What Are the Implications for Environmental Governance?’, Earth System Governance.Google Scholar
United Nations General Assembly (2015), ‘Tackling Illicit Trafficking in Wildlife’, Resolution 69/314, http://tinyurl.com/y3j3sbq7 (accessed 1 February 2019).Google Scholar
United Nations Economic and Social Council (2013), ‘Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Responses to Illicit Trafficking in Protected Species of Wild Fauna and Flora’, Resolution 2013/40, http://tinyurl.com/y95ptrny (accessed 1 February 2019).Google Scholar
UNEP (2014), ‘Marine Plastic Debris and Microplastics’, Resolution 1/6, United Nations Environment Programme, http://tinyurl.com/y2q52nbs (accessed 1 February 2019).Google Scholar
UNEP (2016a), ‘Marine Plastic Litter and Microplastics’, Resolution 2/11, United Nations Environment Programme, http://tinyurl.com/y55gemkf (accessed 1 February 2019).Google Scholar
UNEP (2016b), Marine Plastic Debris and Microplastics – Global Lessons and Research to Inspire Action and Guide Policy Change. United Nations Environment Programme.Google Scholar
USTR (2007), Bipartisan Agreement on Trade Policy, https://tinyurl.com/q9qlo9m (accessed 10 July 2019).Google Scholar
USTR (2017), Summary of Objectives for the NAFTA Renegotiation, http://tinyurl.com/ycgrwnnq (accessed 14 February 2019).Google Scholar
USTR (2019a), United States–Mexico–Canada Trade Fact Sheet: Modernizing NAFTA into a 21st Century Trade Agreement, http://tinyurl.com/y5xppvlm (accessed 14 February 2019).Google Scholar
USTR (2019b), 2019 Trade Policy Agenda and 2018 Annual Report, https://tinyurl.com/y2js358o (accessed 19 August 2019).Google Scholar
Vaughan, S. (2018), ‘USMCA Versus NAFTA on the Environment’, International Institute of Sustainable Development Blog, www.iisd.org/library/usmca-nafta-environment (accessed 14 February 2019).Google Scholar
Weber, B. (2018), ‘New Trade Deal Doesn't Address Climate Change: Environmentalists’, CTV News, 1 October 2018, www.ctvnews.ca/politics/new-trade-deal-doesn-t-addressclimate-change-environmentalists-1.4116723.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Laurens et al. supplementary material

Online Annex

Download Laurens et al. supplementary material(File)
File 159.2 KB