Over at Public Citizen's Eye on Trade blog, they are complaining that CAFTA has no means by which the US can eject a country that has undertaken some anti-democratic action, failed to adopt the rule of law, or otherwise misbehaved. The blog compares that to AGOA, a program in which the President has exactly that power. Recently, Niger, Guinea, and Madagascar lost AGOA benefits following undemocratic transfers of power. Why not, Public Citizen wonders, do the same under CAFTA where Honduras has had a similar experience.
The reason is that AGOA, GSP, and other unilateral preference programs belong to the United States. The US made the rules and can kick out a country that fails to satisfy the rules. CAFTA, like NAFTA and the other bilateral or multilateral trade agreements, are different. The rules were negotiated between and among the parties. Since no one will agree to negotiate and implement a trade agreement from which they might be ejected, the agreements contain no such provisions.
Public Citizen may not like it, but the practical reality is that the trade agreements just don't work that way.
Popular posts from this blog
There are many pages of text in Meyer Corporation v. United States , a recent decision of the U.S. Court of International. One hundred twenty, to be exact. I will try to give you the gist here. And, it turns out, the gist might matter. There are two issues in this case. First, whether imported cookware is entitled to duty-free entry under the Generalized System of Preferences. Second whether the importer legally claimed that the sale price from the related vendor to a related reseller represented the transaction value under the "first sale doctrine." The GSP issue is easier to explain, so let's start there. The clad cookware subject to this case was made in Thailand. At the time of entry, the merchandise was classifiable in 7326.93.0045 and qualifies for GSP duty-free entry if it satisfies the rule of origin. Under that rule, 35% of the value of the merchandise must originate in materials from or direct processing in Thailand. In this instance, a major input material was
You may have seen recent press reports over the interpretation of the so-called "roll-up" provisions of the RVC calculation for certain motor vehicles under the USMCA. This is a complicated issue and there are varying interpretations of the law and the facts, so I figured I could provide some context. For this to make sense, you might want to have the current version of the Uniform Regulations on Rules of Origin handy. The underlying issue is what counts toward the value of non-originating materials when calculating the Regional Value Content of a passenger vehicle or light truck. The starting point for that is Section 14 (p. 39721) of the aforementioned regulations. Section 14(1) begins with a clear and declarative statement: Roll-Up of Originating Materials (1) The value of non-originating materials used by the producer in the production of a passenger vehicle, light truck and parts thereof must not, for the purpose of calculating the regional value content of the good,
Yesterday, at a Georgetown CLE event, I participated in a mock oral argument on the classification of Luke Skywalker and Han Solo action figures. You can read my brief here . The issue came down to whether "action figures" are dolls for classification purposes and whether Luke and Han are human beings. Let me know what you think. Below are my notes for the oral argument. I lost. May it please the Court. The parties agree on many key facts in this case. Galaxy recognizes that its Luke Skywalker and Han Solo action figures might, to the lay person, be viewed as dolls in the ordinary course. Galaxy contends, however, that the facts of this case and more important, the facts of life "a long time ago, in a galaxy far away" mean that for purposes of tariff classification neither the Luke Skywalker figure nor the Han Solo figure are dolls. The sole factual reason for this is that, despite appearances to the contrary, neither character is a human being. The La