That's close. NAFTA gives Mexican and Canadian investors an alternative
that US property owners don't have. It's clearly a very different
procedural alternative. Whether it is substantive or not depends on what
law is applied, whether international law on expropriations is broader or
narrower, and (in my view at least) on how much depends on the
arbitrators/judges, given the vagueness of the standard.
Some Congresspersons didn't like this, and the Trade Act of 2002 requires
that all future trade agreements (FTAs) (1) not give foreign investors a
better deal substantively and (2) that US law be applied as the law of
takings in future FTAs. It does not, however, place foreign investor
regulatory takings disputes in domestic courts.
Marc R. Poirier
Professor of Law
Seton Hall University School of Law
One Newark Center
Newark, NJ 07102
973-642-8478
Mairi Morrison
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: Discussion cc:
list for con law Subject: Re: takings/procedure
question
professors
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
v.ucla.edu>
09/05/03 09:14 AM
Please respond to
Discussion list for
con law professors
that;s interesting....so it would seem that the property rights of a
foreign national the U .S. (?) are stronger than that of an American
citizen? and you seek a way for corporations to buy the same higher rights?
