The standard of review under the North American free trade agreement chapter 19 : a comparative study with particular emphasis on the law of Mexico

On January 1, 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) entered into by and between Mexico, Canada and the United States, came into force. Chapter 19 of NAFTA addresses the Review and Dispute Settlement in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Matters. Furthermore, article 1904 of NAFTA, addresses issues related to the Review of Final Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Determinations. The said article stipulates that an involved Party may request that a panel review, based on the administrative record, a final antidumping or countervailing duty determination of a competent investigating authority of an importing Party. The object of such review is to determine whether the determination was in accordance with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of the importing Party. In order to review such determination, the panel shall apply the standard of review set out in Annex 1911 of NAFTA, and the general legal principles that a court of the importing Party otherwise would apply to review a determination of the competent investigating authority. / Since these kinds of regulations are quite new in the Mexican legal system, the interpretation of the standard of review, has raised a lot of discussion among several panelists, governmental authorities and authors. Therefore, this paper will focus on the application and interpretation of the standard of review under NAFTA chapter 19, mainly by Mexican authorities.

Identiferoai:union.ndltd.org:LACETR/oai:collectionscanada.gc.ca:QMM.30311
Date January 1999
CreatorsLaporta, José Luis.
Contributorsde Mestral, A. L. C. (advisor)
PublisherMcGill University
Source SetsLibrary and Archives Canada ETDs Repository / Centre d'archives des thèses électroniques de Bibliothèque et Archives Canada
LanguageEnglish
Detected LanguageEnglish
TypeElectronic Thesis or Dissertation
Formatapplication/pdf
CoverageMaster of Laws (Institute of Comparative Law.)
RightsAll items in eScholarship@McGill are protected by copyright with all rights reserved unless otherwise indicated.
Relationalephsysno: 001740890, proquestno: MQ64287, Theses scanned by UMI/ProQuest.

Page generated in 0.0019 seconds