SW Legal Educational Publishing

Challenge to NAFTA Requires Specific Injury, Not General Assertions of Injury
Description Challenge by industrial coalition to NAFTA protection against dumping of goods by Canada and Mexico rejected. Coalition did not have standing to challenge the administrative procedure because no direct injury was alleged; the complaint generally attacked NAFTA as damaging.
Topic International Law
Key Words Dumping, Standing, Injury, NAFTA
C A S E   S U M M A R Y
Facts NAFTA provides for binding, non-reviewable, determinations of such complaints by the Department of Commerce or the International Trade Commission. Commerce or the ITC may request a binational panel to review such complaints, but final determination of a dumping complaint is made by Commerce or ITC. An industrial coalition (ACCT) claimed its members suffered economic injury from dumping of goods from Canada and Mexico at below-market prices. ACCT challenged the constitutionality of the administrative proceedings established under NAFTA.
Decision The Court of Appeals has "exclusive original jurisdiction to review constitutional all challenges to the binational panel review provisions" ACCT "has totally failed to establish the requisite causal connection between its alleged injury and the binational panel system." ACCT has not participated in a panel proceeding. "Instead, ACCT recites the importance of enforcing federal laws against dumping and import subsidies and reviews statistical evidence about the adverse consequences that NAFTA has allegedly had on income equality and exporting in the United States. But ACCT never identified any specific instances in which a binational panel decision ... harmed an ACCT member." ACCT has no standing; claim dismissed.
Citation American Coalition for Competitive Trade v. Clinton, ---F.3d--- (1997 WL 705074, D.C. Cir.)
or
128 F.3d 761 (D.C., Cir., 1997)

Back to International Law Listings

©1997  South-Western, All Rights Reserved