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

[Johnny Canuck3]

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').

Well then maybe you should use google before you say things like "'damages' isn't a term used in international law"....

The point of the thread isn't that the US is above the law; rather that they have been known to interpret or ignore the law as it suits them.

 

[Cadmus]

The point of the thread isn't that the US is above the law; rather that they have been known to interpret or ignore the law as it suits them.

In this case, it also suits any other interpreter as it (US interpretation) is the correct interpretation, you see.

sorry again, ruined all your fun, i know...

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Your interpretation is a bizarre one: the decision went against the US. The US was ordered to return the wrongfully collected tariffs. The US is refusing to do so. The US is correct to not return the tariffs.

If member countries can choose to ignore the dictates of the treaties they enter, then the treaties soon become worthless.

 

[Cadmus]

Well then maybe you should use google before you say things like "'damages' isn't a term used in international law"....

Nah, I won't cos unfortunately to understand what international law is you need some extra sources of information, ya see... You can't get a clear picture of what international law is thru Google.

Your example is quite good to illustrate that.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Nah, I won't cos unfortunately to understand what international law is you need some extra sources of information, ya see... You can't get a clear picture of what international law is thru Google.

Your example is quite good to illustrate that.

I'd say that if you don't know that the concept and the term 'damages' is used in international law, then your knowledge of international law is something less than rudimentary.

 

[Cadmus]

If member countries can choose to ignore the dictates of the treaties they enter, then the treaties soon become worthless.

Not all treaties as like NAFTA. The US did not make a decision that it's not entitled to make under the treaty. In international law, there are many dispute settlement regimes, some of them with a binding, others with non-binding outcomes (i.e. negotiation, conciliation).

 

[Cadmus]

I'd say that if you don't know that the concept and the term 'damages' is used in international law, then your knowledge of international law is something less than rudimentary.

I would point you back to re-read my post in context but I know it's pointless. Enjoy the day, I've got to go fill in some gaps in my international law knowledge.

I suggest you do the same - yours are bigger, it seems.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Not all treaties as like NAFTA. The US did not make a decision that it's not entitled to make under the treaty. In international law, there are many dispute settlement regimes, some of them with a binding, others with non-binding outcomes (i.e. negotiation, conciliation).

Do you know what negotiation and conciliation are?

They are alternative dispute mechanisms designed to bring parties together in agreement. Once an agreement is reached a contract is formed.

Contracts are binding.

 

[Cadmus]

Do you know what negotiation and conciliation are?
They are alternative dispute mechanisms designed to bring parties together in agreement.

Really? The International Court of Justice seems to disagree with you in the South West Africa Cases when it claims that negotiation can even run concurrently with adjudication which means that's it's not its alternative. There is no hierarchy of dispute settlement mechanisms. (or so do Collier and Lowe, the leading experts, think)

But I guess you're the expert.

Bye now.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Really? The International Court of Justice seems to disagree with you in the South West Africa Cases when it claims that negotiation can even run concurrently with adjudication which means that's it's not its alternative.

But I guess you're the expert.

Bye now.

Thanks for the recognition!

Negotiation often runs concurrently with adjudication; that doesn't alter its nature as an alternate dispute resolution mechanism.

 

[Cadmus]

That doesn't alter its nature as an alternate dispute resolution mechanism.

What's it alternate to then? Ah, just give it up...

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I suppose the correct term is 'alternative'. Does that help?

 

[Cadmus]

I suppose the correct term is 'alternative'. Does that help?

'Alternative' originally means 'second (option) of the two' (in that way, there's always only one alternative) but is commonly used to denote 'second (option) of the many'. Let's stick to the common use.

You claim it's an 'alternative' mechanism. I was asking what is it the alternative to then? Obviously not to adjudication, as it can run concurrently (on the same issue).

Does that help?

 

[Cadmus]

On second thought, this is completely irrelevant and totally off topic.
I really have to go now, the sun has set on this side of the pond a long time ago. Gotta get up early tomorrow.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_dispute_resolution

http://www.hg.org/adr.html

http://dir.yahoo.com/Government/Law/Alternative_Dispute_Resolution

 

[Cadmus]

All of the links above contain a fair amount of incorrect information, especially Wikipedia (due to its nature). I know you love posting up links and all but Internet does contain loads of incorrect information so keep that in mind. Not everything you Google can be trusted.

 

[DexterTCN]

Some people got diddled when they googled.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

All of the links above contain a fair amount of incorrect information, especially Wikipedia (due to its nature). I know you love posting up links and all but Internet does contain loads of incorrect information so keep that in mind. Not everything you Google can be trusted.

I was trying to provide a couple of links that set out the basics of what ADR is, as opposed to trying to reinvent the wheel myself.

 

[spring-peeper]

WASHINGTON - The Martin government and a coalition of Canadian exporters have launched a new legal attack on the U.S. government over the bitter softwood lumber dispute.

In a lawsuit filed in New York with the U.S. International Trade Court, Ottawa and the Canadian softwood lumber industry are demanding that ''tens of millions of dollars'' in import duties already funnelled to U.S. industries be handed back immediately.

That could easily soar to more than $5-billion in duties collected from Canadian lumber producers being illegally handed over to the U.S. softwood lumber industry in coming years, the Canadian complaint said.

''The U.S. lumber industry interest may have been banking on this money but they are not familiar enough their own laws,'' said Jamie Lim, president of the Ontario Forest Industries Association.

source

I doubt it will make any difference - but, I get a sense that this dispute is really annoying the majority of Canadians.

For those who don't remember him, Mr. Martin is the nice man who took the States that we would not be playing in Iraq with him.

Go team

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

ummm....kinda...ye-ess.
ummm...which court?
don't get ye at all. do elucidate.
and in your view what sanctions - if any - could Canada apply which would make serious impact in the US?
(I ask cos I can't think - offhand, and without trying hard - of one).

An article in the National Post today announced that Canada is bringing suit against the US for return of the tariffs, in the US International Trade Court, located in NYC.