US loses trade dispute with Canada - refuses to pay up.

[Johnny Canuck3]

Out of interest who is politically the primary ally of Canada?

I would guess the US but I am sure that is not reciprocated to the extent you would hope. The US seems to be casting eyes southward how about Canada?

Hard to know what that means.

Who is Britain's 'primary ally'?

 

[herman]

Hard to know what that means.

Who is Britain's 'primary ally'?

Politically a tough call- there are divisions within ourn ruling class between the US and those who wish to be allied primarily with the EU. At the end of the day the govt will have to come down on one side or other. I am still curious where Canada will ultimately fall, it is possibly faced with similar divisions - those who see themselved hitched to the US bandwagon and those who are casting thier eyes elsewher.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Politically a tough call- there are divisions within ourn ruling class between the US and those who wish to be allied primarily with the EU. At the end of the day the govt will have to come down on one side or other. I am still curious where Canada will ultimately fall, it is possibly faced with similar divisions - those who see themselved hitched to the US bandwagon and those who are casting thier eyes elsewher.

It's not easy to come up with a simple answer to that question, is it?

 

[herman]

It's not easy to come up with a simple answer to that question, is it?

It is one you will be forced to answer one day though. The planet seems to be reorganising along the lines of blocs. The idea of NATFA seems to be stalled with new exciting exploitable labour to the south of the US.

Historically to its credit Canda has not been imperialist in its designs but the US is obviously intent on expansionism in terms of influence.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It is one you will be forced to answer one day though. The planet seems to be reorganising along the lines of blocs. The idea of NATFA seems to be stalled with new exciting exploitable labour to the south of the US.

Historically to its credit Canda has not been imperialist in its designs but the US is obviously intent on expansionism in terms of influence.

Historically Canada has had barely enough people to put one in every square mile of this country, never mind sending imperial armies overseas.

Plus, for a time there, our soldiers went overseas to support the imperialist goals of Britain.

 

[nino_savatte]

Historically Canada has had barely enough people to put one in every square mile of this country, never mind sending imperial armies overseas.

Plus, for a time there, our soldiers went overseas to support the imperialist goals of Britain.

So when are you going to become a republic?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

So when are you going to become a republic?

When are you?

 

[nino_savatte]

When are you?

I asked you first and in case you had forgotten, Canada's head of state is still the Queen. You conveniently ignore Canada's link to Britain for whatever reason you have. I thought it best to remind you of the facts.

 

[Streathamite]

Well, at least you're admitting you don't know much about NA, or about US/Canada relations.

Google US Canada trade.

I am MORE than well aware of US-canada trade relations,thank you, and please don't patronise me.
That was NOT the point I was making, as you are perfectly well aware.
There is a power imbalance between the US and Canada which means that any trade argy is only gonna go one way - however you try to pretend otherwise.
so - skirting round yet another JC2 derail - I repeat;

which court?

and if the USG simply raises 2 fingers to the awesome, invincible massed power of Canada - what the hell can you do about it?
Nothing, that's what.

 

[Velouria]

That's actually not true. Well, it can be, but it's in no way a hard and fast rule. Otherwise everybody would be sending their industries to Sierra Leone or Niger.

Those countries lack the infrastructure, and there's a shortage of skilled workers, that they need to set up big manufacturing operations, or they'd be there like a shot. But it's kinda hard to make stuff in countries where premium service from the power company guarantees service 'at least 20 hours a day'. OK that example's Nigeria, but you get the point.

For this reason, a lot of electronics assembly jobs around here have moved to Eastern Europe, cause these countries have a good enough infrastructure and a skilled enough workforce to support manufacturing operations. With the loss of several hundred local jobs

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I asked you first and in case you had forgotten, Canada's head of state is still the Queen. You conveniently ignore Canada's link to Britain for whatever reason you have. I thought it best to remind you of the facts.

I suspect that there might be a serious push to make the place a republic, when this queen passes.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I suspect that there might be a serious push to make the place a republic, when this queen passes.

Makes sense considering what a gibbering fool the heir is.

I'm just surprised that the Australians didn't go for it when they had the chance a few years back.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I am MORE than well aware of US-canada trade relations,thank you, and please don't patronise me.
That was NOT the point I was making, as you are perfectly well aware.
There is a power imbalance between the US and Canada which means that any trade argy is only gonna go once way - however you try to pretend otherwise.
so - skirting round yet another JC2 derail - I repeat;

and if the USG simply raises 2 fingers to the awesome, invincible massed power of Canada - what the hell can you do about it?
Nothing, that's what.

Once again, this proves that you don't know much about how relations between the two countries work.

Here's a recent dispute, concerning Devil's Lake.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/ca...ct_spurs_us_canada_dispute_1117455148?mode=PF

Now, if the only factor in the equation was the awesomness of US power, then the water from the lake would end up in the Red River, and Lake Winnipeg, because that's what N Dakota wanted: right?

But that isn't how it turned out.

http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/EnvironmentNewsService/2005/08/08/964511?extID=10032&oliID=213

As you can see, the two govts worked together to come up with a mutually acceptable solution.

On your theory of Canada/US relations, why would the US bother to do that?

 

[Streathamite]

mutual beneficial interest, hmm?
I didn't say the situation was an absolute imbalance; very little is that cut-and-dried, outside of cowboy movies.

 

[nino_savatte]

I suspect that there might be a serious push to make the place a republic, when this queen passes.

So I take it you aren't happy with the next in line to the throne.

 

[Cadmus]

Today, the US announced that they won't be paying the tariffs back, even though ordered to do so. So much for the rule of law.

I'm not sure about this, you might want to do some research on the NAFTA dispute settlement procedure. I know that in the WTO, the body adjudicating doesn't have a sanctioning power but can merely decide whether the breach of the agreement (in that case GATT) has occurred. After that, the country in breach is offered with a choice - pay damages for breach or (alternatively!) change it's policy (e.g. change it's tariffs, etc).

If that's the case with the NAFTA dispute settlement procedure, the US is completely in line with the rule of law.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I'm not sure about this, you might want to do some research on the NAFTA dispute settlement procedure. I know that in the WTO, the body adjudicating doesn't have a sanctioning power but can merely decide whether the breach of the agreement (in that case GATT) has occurred. After that, the country in breach is offered with a choice - pay damages for breach or (alternatively!) change it's policy (e.g. change it's tariffs, etc).

If that's the case with the NAFTA dispute settlement procedure, the US is completely in line with the rule of law.

These aren't damages. The US determined that Canada was giving unfair advantage to its softwood industry in the form of subsidies, etc. As a result, the US hit the Canadian softwood companies with tariffs on products entering the US.

NAFTA decided that Canada wasn't unfairly subsidizing, and that the wrongfully collected tariffs should be returned to the companies from which they were collected.

 

[Cadmus]

These aren't damages.

wrongfully collected tariffs should be returned to the companies from which they were collected.

Erm, this is a form of damages - real damage, compensated in form of pure restitution. They were in violation of the free trade agreement and this is the 'punishment'.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Erm, this is a form of damages - real damage, compensated in form of pure restitution. They were in violation of the free trade agreement and this is the 'punishment'.

Restitution is different from damages. Damages are a monetary assessment meant to put someone in the same position had the breach, either contractual or tortious or whatever, not occurred.

Restitution is returning or replacing a lost item, commodity, service etc. in integrum.

 

[Cadmus]

Restitution is different from damages. Damages are a monetary assessment meant to put someone in the same position had the breach, either contractual or tortious or whatever, not occurred.

Restitution is returning or replacing a lost item, commodity, service etc. in integrum.

Just check the dispute settlement rules to see if your assertion from the beginning of the thread that US in not in acting in accordance with the rule of law is true, ok?

And trust me on the WTO and damages here, they can come in form of pure restitution in international law or even in less prominent forms (ICJ practice). They are actually not called damages in international law but that's irrelevant.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Just check the dispute settlement rules to see if your assertion from the beginning of the thread that US in not in acting in accordance with the rule of law is true, ok?

And trust me on the WTO and damages here, they can come in form of pure restitution in international law or even in less prominent forms (ICJ practice). They are actually not called damages in international law but that's irrelevant.

Of what relevance are WTO definitions in a NAFTA dispute?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

http://www.aspenpublishers.com/Prod...ory_name=&product_id=9041106456&cookie_test=1

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

http://www.periodicals.com/stock_e/w/ttl51516.html

 

[Cadmus]

Of what relevance are WTO definitions in a NAFTA dispute?

WTO and NAFTA are organisations of similar kind. They might be similar in the dispute settlement procedure...but since you haven't checked it, I have checked it myself.

Under NAFTA, decisions of the panels on disputes are under certain conditions not binding on parties. They have persuasive power but if one doesn't comply, there's not breach of law. The dispute settlement procedure is even less formal than in the WTO and even less like a judicial process.

A NAFTA decision isn't 'the law'.

Your assertion is therefore wrong.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

As is your assertion that damages don't exist in international law.

 

[Cadmus]

At least I dont have a thread based on it.

[SIZE=-2]And they do exist but go under different names, i did not claim they don't exist at all.[/SIZE]

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The NAFTA Investor-State Panel can award damages to an investor that has been harmed by a government measure that violates the NAFTA.
These types of damages can include the following:

Investment losses
Lost profits (both historic and future)
Lost property
Lost goodwill
Legal and other related costs

http://www.appletonlaw.com/3fDamages.htm

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

At least I dont have a thread based on it.

[SIZE=-2]And they do exist but go under different names, i did not claim they don't exist at all.[/SIZE]

They are, in fact called 'damages' in international law, as my links point out.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

'For the U.S. government to deny the effect of this process weakens respect for the NAFTA and for the rule of law internationally, something the U.S. espouses when it suits its purposes,' said trade lawyer Lawrence Herman of Cassels Brock in Toronto

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/15/213407.php

 

[Cadmus]

They are, in fact called 'damages' in international law, as my links point out.

And you have proven that your are a very dilligent guy - google is everybody's friend, we know that...

Sorry for refuting the main point of your thread (US being 'above the law').