Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T18:47:12.261Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

NAFTA Commission Statement on Amicus Curiae Participation in Arbitrations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2017

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 98 , Issue 4 , October 2004 , pp. 841 - 842
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 North American Free Trade Agreement, Dec. 17, 1992 Google Scholar, Can.–Mex.–U.S., 32 ILM 289 & 605 (1993) (entered into force Jan. 1, 1994) [hereinafter NAFTA].

2 For background on the case and the tribunal’s decision, see Murphy, Sean D. Contemporary Practice of the United States, 97 AJIL 440 (2003)Google ScholarPubMed.

3 Methanex Corp. v. United States, Decision of the Tribunal on Petitions from Third Persons to Intervene as “Amici Curiae” (NAFTA Ch. 11 Arb. Trib. Jan. 15, 2001). Decisions and pleadings in the case are available online at <http://www.naftalaw.org> .

4 Methanex Corp. v. United States, First Partial Award (NAFTA Ch. 11 Arb. Trib. Aug. 7, 2002).

5 Id.,para. 172.

6 Methanex Corp. v. United States, Claimant Methanex Corporation’s Request to Limit Amicus Curiae Submissions to Legal Issues Raised by the Parties (NAFTA Ch. 11 Arb. Trib. Apr. 15, 2003).

7 Response of Respondent United States of America to Methanex’s Request to Limit Amicus Curiae Submissions to Legal Issues Raised by the Parties (Apr. 28, 2003)Google Scholar (NAFTA Ch. 11 Arb. Trib.).

8 NAFTA Free Trade Commission, Statement of the Free Trade Commission on Non–disputing Party Participation, para. B(1) (Oct. 7, 2003), at <http://www.ustr.gov>>Google Scholar .

9 Id., para. B(2).

10 Id., para. B(3).

11 Id., para. B(6).

12 Id., para. B(7).

13 Id., para. B(8).

14 Letter from Christopher F. Dugan, Counsel for Methanex, to the Members of the Methanex v. United States Chapter 11 Tribunal (Oct. 31, 2003)Google Scholar. The letter further contained a footnote to this statement, which said:

The disputing parties note that disclosure of any such collaboration may be relevant to a determination of whether the non–disputing party has attempted to evade the page limits provided in ¶3(b) of the FTC statement or whether the submission will disrupt, unduly burden or unfairly prejudice either disputing party in contravention of ¶7 of that statement. If it appears that that has happened, the parties view ¶7 of the FTC statement as requiring the Tribunal to take appropriate action.

15 See ICSID Press Release, Methanex v. United States of America: NAFTA/UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules Proceeding (Jan. 30, 2004), at <http://www.worldbank.org/icsid/methanex.htm>>Google Scholar .