This is Kathleen Claussen's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Kathleen Claussen's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Kathleen Claussen
Recent Activity
This is a post by Kathleen Claussen and Tim Meyer. It is cross-posted on Lawfare. Over the last few years, separation-of-trade-law-powers questions have grown in importance. We know the basics: according to the Constitution, the regulation of commerce with foreign... Continue reading
The Journal of International Economic Law (JIEL) is pleased to announce its second annual Junior Faculty Forum to be held in hybrid or virtual format on September 23-24, 2022, on the sidelines of the American Society of International Law International... Continue reading
The American Society of International Law's International Economic Law Interest Group is hosting a summer virtual book talk series again this year and so far has held two conversations featuring recent and upcoming books published by Greg Shaffer and Esme... Continue reading
With the deadlines now having passed for moving the UK and Kenya agreements through the 2015 Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) process, there has been some talk about pursuing instead more “skinny” or “mini”-deals especially given that the prospects of renewing... Continue reading
Thanks, Ted! (And hoping this post works since I couldn't get the site to reply to your comment - fingers crossed!) In further discussions yesterday afternoon about the remedies issues, we came to the same sticking point re non-traded goods and services. But given the expansive phrasing in Article 31-A.10(2)-(4) ("may include"), what is to stop the complaining Party from taking any number of actions including against the responding Party and not the facility? In a circumstance where the goods do not cross the border, I would think that that expansive language could be read to encompass anything so long as it is "proportional" (and if the responding Party thinks it is not then I guess it can file under Chapter 31...). Those goods and services don't have the suspended liquidation threat that you and I discuss (and I think we came to the tentative conclusion yesterday that CBP has the requisite information, but others can correct if that's not right), though, and that seems like it could be a reasonably powerful tool that would be lacking vis-a-vis this group of facilities. Neither of us has discussed the catch-22 of leaving this in government hands. On the one hand, that seems a red line for certain constituencies that would surely oppose any deal with a private right of action. On the other, the politics and burden of going through this exercise may mean it doesn't see much use at all. On TPA, I understand decisions are still TBD. But curious for others' thoughts on the relevance and impact, if any, of TPA Section 103(b)(1)(c) ("Substantial modifications ...") - doesn't the Protocol qualify? We entered into USMCA in the appropriate timeframe (to be sure, Section 106 distinguishes between "entered into" and "entry into force") and then this is a substantial change/additional provision. Still seems unclear where that leaves us in any event.
1 reply
Kathleen Claussen is now following The Typepad Team
Dec 12, 2019