The U.S. Chamber of Commerce attributed to nafta that U.S. trade in goods and services with Canada and Mexico increased from $337 billion in 1993 to $1.2 trillion in 2011, while the AFL-CIO held the agreement responsible for sending 700,000 U.S. manufacturing jobs to Mexico at that time. [86] Executive agreements are often used to circumvent the requirements of national constitutions for treaty ratification. Many nations that are republics with written constitutions have constitutional rules on treaty ratification. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe is based on executive agreements. NAFTA is a prime example. It is not a treaty, it is an “executive agreement of Congress,” so called to reflect the fact that Congress approves it and that the president accepts it. As a treaty, such an agreement binds the United States to international law. It differs above all from a treaty in the way it is adopted. Both houses of Congress pass it as ordinary legislation, so only a simple majority is required in the Senate, while approval of a majority of the House of Representatives, which is not required for a treaty, is also required.
On September 30, 2018, the deadline for negotiations between Canada and the United States, an interim agreement was reached between the two countries, thus retaining the trilateral pact when the Trump administration submits the agreement to Congress. [150] The new name of the agreement was the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and came into force on July 1, 2020. [151] [152] Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders, who opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, called it “the continuation of other disastrous trade agreements such as NAFTA, CAFTA and normal, sustainable trade relations with China.” He believes that free trade agreements have led to the loss of American jobs and lower U.S. wages. Sanders said America needs to rebuild its production base with U.S. factories for well-paying jobs for the U.S. workforce, instead of relocating to China and elsewhere. [126] [127] [128] This is true, but the NAFTA Act explicitly states that it “does not limit the power of submission.” Section 301 of the Trade Act 1974. For its part, this status gives the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) the broad power to suspend trade agreements when a foreign country is found to have committed “unjustified” or “inappropriate” acts, even if those measures do not violate the provisions of a trade pact.
Comments are closed.