Column of NAFTA Case Law
| Páginas | 82-83 |
R
R
Re
e
ev
v
vi
i
is
s
st
t
ta
a
a
L
L
La
a
at
t
ti
i
in
n
no
o
oa
a
am
m
me
e
er
r
ri
i
ic
c
ca
a
an
n
na
a
a
d
d
de
e
e
M
M
Me
e
ed
d
di
i
ia
a
ac
c
ci
i
ió
ó
ón
n
n
y
y
y
A
A
Ar
r
rb
b
bi
i
it
t
tr
r
ra
a
aj
j
je
e
e,
,
,
2
2
20
0
00
0
03
3
3,
,
,
N
N
Nú
ú
úm
m
me
e
er
r
ro
o
o
4
4
4
-
-
-
–
–
–
82
Column of U.S. Case Law
Discovery: Prestige Ford v. Ford Dealer Computer Services Inc. (5th Cir. Mar. 25,
2003).
Plaintiff claimed that the Arbitral Tribunal’s decision to deny the discovery of certain documents
constituted a deprivation of justice and not permitting to properly defend itself or prove its
counterclaims against defendant. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held
that there was no statutory or public policy basis, nor any manifest disregard of the law, that
necessitated overturning the arbitration panel’s decision.
Full decision at: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/OpinHome.cfm
JAG
Column of NAFTA Case Law
ICSID, ADF International v. United States of America (In the Matter of an
Arbitration under Chapter Eleven of the North American Free Trade Agreement),
Case No. ARB (AF)/00/1 (January 9, 2003)
The "Buy America" requirements of an American administration, giving priority to U.S. firms on
the detriment of a Canadian firm, does not violate the national treatment requirements of Article
1102. The Tribunal further determined that the project, from which the Canadian firm had been
precluded, constituted "procurement by a Party" within the meaning of Article 1108 and the
Notes of Interpretation by NAFTA's Free Trade Commission concerning the minimum standard
of treatment under international law of NAFTA Article 1105(1) released on July 31, 2001, and
was therefore entitled to protection under the reservations and exceptions to national treatment,
most favored nation treatment and performance requirements set forth in Article 1108 sections
(7)(a) and (8)(b). The Tribunal also held that the U.S. measures in question were not in violation
of NAFTA Article 1105(1) in light of the NAFTA Free Trade Commission's Notes of
Interpretation.
The full decision at: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/16586.pdf
JAG
NAFTA, Chapter Eleven Tribunal, United Parcel Service v. Canada (Award on
Jurisdiction) (November 22, 2002)
The present decision deals with the question of whether anti-competitive measures could
constitute a violation of the minimum standard of treatment of Article 1105(1), and whether
violations of Chapter Fifteen, which were alleged to be in violation of obligations such as
transparency set forth in the Objectives of Article 102(1), could be brought before a Chapter
Eleven Tribunal.
More precisely, the question at stack was about the relationship between Article 1116 of Chapter
Eleven, which sets forth certain jurisdictional provisions for bringing investor-State claims, and
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba