Dispute Settlement Mechanisms in U.S. FTAs with Korea, Panama, Peru and Colombia: Basic Designs, Key Characteristics and Implications

The United States concluded free trade agreements (FTAs) with Korea, Peru, Panama and Colombia in late 2000s. Since the four FTAs were negotiated and concluded largely contemporaneously, key traits and characteristics of the agreements are similarly formulated. In light of this, dispute settlement m...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Lee Jaemin
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Sciendo 2016-12-01
Series:British Journal of American Legal Studies
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1515/bjals-2016-0017
id doaj-fe5b5b588f904cc99bbb83a1e108a8a8
record_format Article
spelling doaj-fe5b5b588f904cc99bbb83a1e108a8a82021-09-05T20:42:28ZengSciendoBritish Journal of American Legal Studies2049-40922016-12-015248750410.1515/bjals-2016-0017bjals-2016-0017Dispute Settlement Mechanisms in U.S. FTAs with Korea, Panama, Peru and Colombia: Basic Designs, Key Characteristics and ImplicationsLee Jaemin0Seoul National University, KoreaThe United States concluded free trade agreements (FTAs) with Korea, Peru, Panama and Colombia in late 2000s. Since the four FTAs were negotiated and concluded largely contemporaneously, key traits and characteristics of the agreements are similarly formulated. In light of this, dispute settlement mechanisms (state-to-state dispute settlement proceedings, investor-state dispute settlement proceedings, and Joint Committees) of the four FTAs also share commonalities. At the same time, new ideas and suggestions are explored in the four FTAs. While issues and disputes under the four FTAs have arguably not been ripe for the constitution of dispute settlement proceedings under the FTAs at the moment, sooner or later they are likely to end up in the dockets of the respective proceedings. The key elements of the four FTAs’ dispute settlement mechanisms are also adopted in other FTAs that the United States have concluded afterwards including most recently the Trans-Pacific Partnership, since these elements are reflective of the general scheme of the United States in their FTAs. What remains to be seen is how the general scheme of dispute settlement proceedings can be applied and implemented in actual settings when the FTAs produce increasing numbers of disputes in the future. In particular, marked disparity in human and financial resources between the United States and the four FTA’s parties may bring about disparate impacts and consequences among contracting parties. Continued attention needs to be paid to the development concerning implementation of the four FTAs, in particular their dispute settlement proceedings.https://doi.org/10.1515/bjals-2016-0017
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Lee Jaemin
spellingShingle Lee Jaemin
Dispute Settlement Mechanisms in U.S. FTAs with Korea, Panama, Peru and Colombia: Basic Designs, Key Characteristics and Implications
British Journal of American Legal Studies
author_facet Lee Jaemin
author_sort Lee Jaemin
title Dispute Settlement Mechanisms in U.S. FTAs with Korea, Panama, Peru and Colombia: Basic Designs, Key Characteristics and Implications
title_short Dispute Settlement Mechanisms in U.S. FTAs with Korea, Panama, Peru and Colombia: Basic Designs, Key Characteristics and Implications
title_full Dispute Settlement Mechanisms in U.S. FTAs with Korea, Panama, Peru and Colombia: Basic Designs, Key Characteristics and Implications
title_fullStr Dispute Settlement Mechanisms in U.S. FTAs with Korea, Panama, Peru and Colombia: Basic Designs, Key Characteristics and Implications
title_full_unstemmed Dispute Settlement Mechanisms in U.S. FTAs with Korea, Panama, Peru and Colombia: Basic Designs, Key Characteristics and Implications
title_sort dispute settlement mechanisms in u.s. ftas with korea, panama, peru and colombia: basic designs, key characteristics and implications
publisher Sciendo
series British Journal of American Legal Studies
issn 2049-4092
publishDate 2016-12-01
description The United States concluded free trade agreements (FTAs) with Korea, Peru, Panama and Colombia in late 2000s. Since the four FTAs were negotiated and concluded largely contemporaneously, key traits and characteristics of the agreements are similarly formulated. In light of this, dispute settlement mechanisms (state-to-state dispute settlement proceedings, investor-state dispute settlement proceedings, and Joint Committees) of the four FTAs also share commonalities. At the same time, new ideas and suggestions are explored in the four FTAs. While issues and disputes under the four FTAs have arguably not been ripe for the constitution of dispute settlement proceedings under the FTAs at the moment, sooner or later they are likely to end up in the dockets of the respective proceedings. The key elements of the four FTAs’ dispute settlement mechanisms are also adopted in other FTAs that the United States have concluded afterwards including most recently the Trans-Pacific Partnership, since these elements are reflective of the general scheme of the United States in their FTAs. What remains to be seen is how the general scheme of dispute settlement proceedings can be applied and implemented in actual settings when the FTAs produce increasing numbers of disputes in the future. In particular, marked disparity in human and financial resources between the United States and the four FTA’s parties may bring about disparate impacts and consequences among contracting parties. Continued attention needs to be paid to the development concerning implementation of the four FTAs, in particular their dispute settlement proceedings.
url https://doi.org/10.1515/bjals-2016-0017
work_keys_str_mv AT leejaemin disputesettlementmechanismsinusftaswithkoreapanamaperuandcolombiabasicdesignskeycharacteristicsandimplications
_version_ 1717785675674157056