United States Government Publishing Office publisher pbl distributor dst United States Government Accountability Office General Government Division author aut Government Organization text government publication eng GAOREPORTS Legislative Agency Publications gao legislative 2010-08-12 U.S. Government Printing Office 1995-06-16 monographic deposited born digital 110 p. GA 1.13:GGD-95-175BR https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-GGD-95-175BR P0b002ee180395e46 f:gg95175b DGPO 2010-08-12 2011-03-28 GAOREPORTS-GGD-95-175BR machine generated eng fdlp REPORT GAOREPORTS-GGD-95-175BR GGD-95-175BR International trade International agreements Conflict of interest International economic relations Restrictive trade practices Subsidies Import regulation Appellate procedure Administrative remedies Tariffs North American Free Trade Agreement United States-Canada Free Trade Area Agreement NAFTA Canada Briefing Report GGD

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement's (FTA) binational panel process to resolve trade disputes, focusing on: (1) U.S. and Canadian expectations for the binational panel process; (2) a statistical overview of panel activities and decisions; (3) participants' satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the panel process; and (4) other factors that may have contributed to the controversy over the binational panel process.<p/>GAO found that: (1) the U.S. and Canadian compromise on the binational panel process occurred when U.S. and Canadian negotiators could not agree on harmonizing their trade remedy laws in FTA; (2) the panels' goals included protecting each country's sovereignty, creating trade benefits, reducing political pressures, and providing a fair and expeditious review process; (3) expectations on how the panels would accomplish these goals differed because the countries' underlying concerns about the use of trade remedy laws remained unresolved; (4) it was difficult to identify any patterns in panel operations because of the small number of completed cases; (5) some participants were satisfied with the binational panel process because they thought the process was faster than traditional judicial review, the panels operated smoothly, and the panelists showed expertise and gave a thorough and in-depth review of the cases; (6) some participants were dissatisfied with the process due to the misinterpretation of U.S. law, improper substitution of panelists' judgment for U.S. agencies' judgment, excessive use of remands, emergence of a separate U.S. case law applicable only to Canada, and the adverse impact of panelist and agency discord or conflicts of interest on the process; and (7) the controversy over the binational panel process was heightened due to the conflict between panel behavior and some participants' expectations of how the panel process should have worked. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-GGD-95-175BR/html/GAOREPORTS-GGD-95-175BR.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-GGD-95-175BR/pdf/GAOREPORTS-GGD-95-175BR.pdf GAO/GGD-95-175BR https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-GGD-95-175BR Briefing Report GAO/GGD-95-175BR; U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement: Factors Contributing to Controversy in Appeals of Trade Remedy Cases to Binational Panels; International trade International agreements Conflict of interest International economic relations Restrictive trade practices Subsidies Import regulation Appellate procedure Administrative remedies Tariffs North American Free Trade Agreement United States-Canada Free Trade Area Agreement NAFTA Canada Title 19 Section 1677 19 U.S.C. 1677