Fact or Fiction: Does the Hatch-Wyden-Obama Trade Promotion Authority Bill Protect U.S. Sovereignty [View all]

[cali]

The Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) bill that was released last week contains a fascinating Section 8 on “Sovereignty.” The section appears intended to make all trade agreements with the U.S. not binding to the extent that they contradict any provision of U.S. law, current or future. If valid, the section would go a long way to calming fears in this country that new trade agreements, like the old ones, could be used by corporations or other countries to force the U.S. to alter domestic regulations. (See, for example, analysis on how the leaked TPP text could enable challenges to intellectual property limitations and exceptions like the U.S. fair use doctrine).

Here, I analyze Section 8’s promise using The Washington Post’s “Fact or Fiction” Pinocchio scale. For containing numerous blatantly misleading characterizations of international law, including outright falsehoods concerning the ability of U.S. Congress to determine when international law binds, I give the provision four Pinocchios.

Section 8 of the TPA bill states:

<snip>

Let’s take these in order. Section (a) is a repetition of the language in every free trade implementation act that has passed congress since NAFTA. In technical detail, it is mostly literally true. International trade agreements, like most international treaties in the U.S., are non-self-executing, meaning that they only become judicially cognizable as U.S. law through domestic legislation implementing their mandates. Section (a) can be seen as articulating that standard. Elsewhere, the bill makes clear that the President has to identify through draft implementing legislation all the changes in US law required by the treaty. Any changes in law required by the treaty that are not adopted by the Congress in that implementing legislation will have no effect on U.S. law.

It is not true, however, that a failure of Congress to implement changes a treaty requires renders those provisions has having “no effect” whatsoever. The non-implemented provisions will still bind the U.S. under international law. Some other party of the treaty, or a private investor under investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), could (depending on the enforcement language in the treaty) sue the U.S. for damages or to authorize trade sanctions. That dispute settlement process would bind the U.S. government – and have effect – even though it would not change U.S. law.

<snip>

http://infojustice.org/archives/34298

This site is NOT connected to infowars. It is not some fringe site.

ntributors include

Sean Flynn, Associate Director of American University Washington College of Law, Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property