NationStates Jolt Archive

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051206/softwood_duties_051206

I could have sworn it was the U.S., but the american government seems to like refusing to follow the treaty when it's not convenient for them.

And this surprises you?

Ask the Natives how many treaties the US honored here.....

And this surprises you?

Ask the Natives how many treaties the US honored here.....

"Exactically!" said the Caterpillar.

And this surprises you?

Ask the Natives how many treaties the US honored here.....
I really hope the canadian government retalliates for this. It's annoying that our country is always being taken advantage of.

But our politicians like being spineless fucks. Hopefully Harper won't get in, he'll just kiss ass to Bush even more and this will never get resolved.

Hopefully Harper won't get in, he'll just kiss ass to Bush even more and this will never get resolved.
If Harper got in, we'd never see that 5 billion back, that's for sure. Hell, we'd probably see a Harper government pay off the lumber industry a portion of the 5 billion stolen by the Yanks and try to spin it into some supposed 'resolution' of the rift over NAFTA.

It's technically not a treaty. Though I suppose that Article 27 on the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties makes that a bit of a moot point.

The representative from the Chamber of Congress took out his inflatable Nanotech soap box and prepared his speech/rant:

"Free trade from its shackles! Smash bureaucratic barriers! Down with the WTO! Down with the IMF! Down with NAFTA and CAFTA! Simply remove barriers to voluntary interactions! In fact, screw government! ALL GOVERNMENT! BURN! SMASH!

*The representative begins lighting local franchises that receive subsides ablaze. After being calmed down by fellow representatives...*

"I'm sorry. Government should protect against fraud and the like. And thieving fascist corporatist corporate welfare pigs."

*The representative then poked a picture of Dick Cheney and turned away mildly amused but deeply saddened."

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

I really hope the canadian government retalliates for this. It's annoying that our country is always being taken advantage of.anybody got a pair of scissors, ropes, and rubber gloves? :D

btw, reducing the tarriff to 10.81% is a good start but not good enough.

It's technically not a treaty. Though I suppose that Article 27 on the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties makes that a bit of a moot point.

OK, you out legaleezed me on that one. Please explain.

You have to remember that it was passed over the objection of the US population too. Clinton was all like: "If you elect me I will veto NAFTA."

Five minutes into the Whitehouse and he was: "After prudent reconsideration I now support NAFTA."

So I really can't see how Bush not honoring it is going to hurt him with his base.

OK, you out legaleezed me on that one. Please explain.
Sort of irrelevant, yet are you either practising or studying Law?

I proposed NAFTA, and I don't care who it fucks over! Why? Because I can!

*proceeds to kick an orphan in the teeth*

Sort of irrelevant, yet are you either practising or studying Law?

Because you ask, I am an attorney.

You have to remember that it was passed over the objection of the US population too. Clinton was all like: "If you elect me I will veto NAFTA."

Five minutes into the Whitehouse and he was: "After prudent reconsideration I now support NAFTA."

So I really can't see how Bush not honoring it is going to hurt him with his base.
Yes, but if Canada starts to retalliate by imposing tarrifs on american imports, then the industries will be affected and then there might be some issues...

"The only issue here is why we haven't already dumped the tea in the harbor! CRUSH THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX!" said the representative.
:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper:

OK, you out legaleezed me on that one. Please explain.

It's a congressional-executive agreement, under Article I, section 8 of the US constitution ("To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."), rather than a treaty enacted under Article 2, section 2, which is why is passed through Congress and was signed to become effective, rather than just being negotiated by the Executive and gaining Senate confirmation. (Then presumably being Codified into US federal law). Therefore it is arguably not part of the corpus of US private international law, and thus the US can never be in material breach with respect to foreign sovereigns.

However, that doesn't really matter, because under Article 2 of the Vienna Convention - to which the US is a signatory -, its pretty clearly a treaty anyway. (“[T]reaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation;*) Further, Article 27 of the Vienna convention states: "A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46."

Clearly then, despite its origins, the US is obligated under international law to observe its provisions. (Though you can dick around and argue that Article 46 possibly allows an out, owing to consitutional limits on the extent to which the US could be bound. I doubt it would convince many people though).

It's a congressional-executive agreement, under Article I, section 8 of the US constitution ("To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."), rather than a treaty enacted under Article 2, section 2, which is why is passed through Congress and was signed to become effective, rather than just being negotiated by the Executive and gaining Senate confirmation. (Then presumably being Codified into US federal law). Therefore it is arguably not part of the corpus of US private international law, and thus the US can never be in material breach with respect to foreign sovereigns.

However, that doesn't really matter, because under Article 2 of the Vienna Convention - to which the US is a signatory -, its pretty clearly a treaty anyway. (“[T]reaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation;*) Further, Article 27 of the Vienna convention states: "A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46."

Clearly then, despite its origins, the US is obligated under international law to observe its provisions. (Though you can dick around and argue that Article 46 possibly allows an out, owing to consitutional limits on the extent to which the US could be bound. I doubt it would convince many people though).

Wow. Thanks for the explanation.

Yes, but if Canada starts to retalliate by imposing tarrifs on american imports, then the industries will be affected and then there might be some issues...

Ah, don't misunderstand me. I am in favor of NAFTA, I think Clinton did the right thing. I also think that the US should abide by it, instead of pandering to special economic interests.

You have to remember though, that by and large the people who oppose it are part of the "they took ar jobs" crowd, and not exactly the sharpest tools in the shed. I highly doubt that they will make the connection between the economic impacts of Canada's retaliatory tariffs, and Bush "standing up for ar jobs." Or if they do, they won't care, so long as they still have their subsidized employment.

Wow. Thanks for the explanation.

NP.

I feel a little special that I get to explain something to you for a change.

Did anybody read this article?

Layton urges retaliatory taxes over softwood lumber dispute
Last Updated Sat, 03 Dec 2005 20:30:38 EST
CBC News

NDP Leader Jack Layton says Canada should consider taxing energy exports to the United States if Washington doesn't lift its tariffs on softwood lumber imports.

Layton said trade sanctions might be necessary if the U.S. doesn't dump the import duties that have siphoned $5 billion so far from Canadian producers of softwood lumber.

Layton focused on the softwood lumber issue Saturday during campaign stops in British Columbia, the province hit hardest by the dispute.

"We favour a polite, clear, neighbourly warning that Canada is prepared to impose export duties on oil and gas exports to the United States," he said.

Layton said Ottawa needed to take a tougher stand in the dispute, which is the main trade irritant between the two countries and has been winding its way through a series of dispute proceedings.

The U.S. administration has been refusing to heed several NAFTA rulings supporting Canadian claims that the tariffs were illegal – including a recent one by an international panel whose rulings were to be binding in disputes under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The U.S. Commerce Department eventually said on Nov. 22 that it would comply with the NAFTA panel's ruling on softwood lumber, even though it strongly disagreed with it.

***

Is it a good idea or will it backfire?

And this surprises you?

Ask the Natives how many treaties the US honored here.....

I suppose you should also ask the early settlers how many treaties the natives honored.

I suppose you should also ask the early settlers how many treaties the natives honored.

Not the point in question. You enter a foreign land to live without invite, you takes your chances.

Point being the US made over 500 treaties with the Native Americans and broke everyone of them.

Did anybody read this article?

Layton urges retaliatory taxes over softwood lumber dispute
Last Updated Sat, 03 Dec 2005 20:30:38 EST
CBC News

NDP Leader Jack Layton says Canada should consider taxing energy exports to the United States if Washington doesn't lift its tariffs on softwood lumber imports.

Layton said trade sanctions might be necessary if the U.S. doesn't dump the import duties that have siphoned $5 billion so far from Canadian producers of softwood lumber.

Layton focused on the softwood lumber issue Saturday during campaign stops in British Columbia, the province hit hardest by the dispute.

"We favour a polite, clear, neighbourly warning that Canada is prepared to impose export duties on oil and gas exports to the United States," he said.

Layton said Ottawa needed to take a tougher stand in the dispute, which is the main trade irritant between the two countries and has been winding its way through a series of dispute proceedings.

The U.S. administration has been refusing to heed several NAFTA rulings supporting Canadian claims that the tariffs were illegal – including a recent one by an international panel whose rulings were to be binding in disputes under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The U.S. Commerce Department eventually said on Nov. 22 that it would comply with the NAFTA panel's ruling on softwood lumber, even though it strongly disagreed with it.

***

Is it a good idea or will it backfire?

No, that'll just end up hurting Canada more than the US. If anything, it'll drive the trade balance in the US's favor.

No, that'll just end up hurting Canada more than the US. If anything, it'll drive the trade balance in the US's favor.

What if they start considering selling to other nations? Or have it traded solely in Euros?

What if they start considering selling to other nations? Or have it traded solely in Euros?

What other nations? The infra-structure is geared towards supplying the US. It would require a significant effort to redirect the supply network. Nor can I see europe caring, because they are busy developing Russian supply networks, and I don't imagine they will suspend that because of a temporary state of affairs in North America.

The US on the other hand, being more populus, and therefore with a more diverse infrastructure, could make up shortfalls from other sources.

And oil is traded in dollars. I can't see OPEC setting out to devalue its own substantial foreign holdings to help Canada out in a trade war.

Ultimately, the price of a barrel of oil is set by the commodities markets, the majority of the burden of any export tax will be borne by Canadians.

Note: I am not saying that the US gets off scot-free in this situation, but it would be substantially worse for Canada. Nor least of which because of the huge difference in size of the two national economies.

Canada could turn off the electricity however.

Canada could turn off the electricity however.
That would be hilarious.

Canada: North America's light switch.

That would be hilarious.

Yes, but you'd have to elect Hugo Chavez before that happened.

Anyway, all Canada has to do is wait for the next administration, and this will inevitably sort itself out. These things always do.