Showing posts with label University of Western Ontario. Show all posts
Showing posts with label University of Western Ontario. Show all posts

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Will the Trans-Pacific Partnership Jump-Start a Stalled WTO? Richard Cunningham's CUSLI Distinguished Lecture

By Keith Edmund White
Editor-in-Chief, CUSLI-Nexus

Not heard much about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)?  The TPP is a U.S.-led push to liberalize trade among 11 countries that is entering its 15th round of deliberations next month.   It's also, according to Salon, "the biggest trade deal you've never heard of," like a hush-hush, super-sized NAFTA in the Pacific region.

Richard O. Cunningham
But, according to Richard O. Cunningham, the TPP is much more than a long-running series of trade talks.  The TPP may not only determine the WTO's future, but set the trend lines of the Sino-American relationship in the 21st century.  And Canada may play a critical role in whether the TPP revitalizes or cripples multilateral trade liberalization efforts.

Richard Cunningham, Senior Partner at Steptoe & Johnson LLP in Washington D.C., spoke on the Doha tragedy and sized-up America’s TPP gambit at the Sixth Annual Canada-United States Law Institute Distinguished Lecture.  Cunningham delivered his speech, Trade After Doha:  The Growing Divide Between the Emerging Nations and the Developing World, last week at the University of Western Ontario Faculty of Law in London, Ontario.

Watch Cunningham's speech at Western Law's Vimeo page, or at the bottom of this post.  Below is a summary of the Cunningham's speech, accompanied with some key quotes. 


Key Quotes: 
“[M]any people regard [the GATT and WTO] as probably, until this juncture, as the most successful of mankind’s efforts at a truly international organization on a truly international issue—that is trade.”

“Fundamental misconception of how a trade negotiation is conducted.  Trade negotiations are about doing a deal.  Yes, there can be an emphasis on greater benefits to the developing world, but to have a deal it has to go both ways.  Otherwise, look at your Parliament in Canada, look at the Congress of the United States, can you imagine the ratification of an international deal that further lowered tariff barriers and made other concessions by the United States and Canada that gets nothing in return?  Can you imagine that being ratified?” 
  • America’s Trade Gambit: The TPP Plan Could Resuscitate or Cripple Multilateral Trade Liberalization Efforts.  The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a U.S.-led effort to conclude a 11-nation trade liberalization pact.  Why does the TPP merit our attention, even though it includes a nation most readers probably have never heard of (Brunei Darussalam) and does not include Japan, India, or China?  Because America is hoping that the diverse TPP group can reach a model trade agreement that will break the Doha logjam.  But real pitfalls exist:  (1) Pressure to include more nations in the TPP—especially Japan—risks turning the TPP into a Doha Disaster 2.0;  and (2) the desire of some U.S. officials to use the TPP as a diplomatic tool to ‘box in’ China:  a strategy that risks creating two competing trade blocs, not to mention increased tensions between the world’s two top economies.
Key Quotes:

“To the curious case of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.  It is the Obama administration trade policy.  There is no Obama administration trade policy other than the trans-pacific partnership…but it’s not clear…what [the United States] is doing with it.”

“But trade gets involved with politics and geo-politics.  And if you ask…a government official who is not a trade official…they’ll say TPP sounds great for an entirely different reason.  A geo-political reason.  They will say the big issue today is China…China [has] embarked upon bringing Asian under its wing, [and] we need to setup a counter-balance to China, and therefore we’re going to use TPP to do that."

Key Quotes:

Is it in Canada’s interest to pick up the TPP banner?  “Canada, I submit, has an even greater interest than the United States to [gain] access to the emerging markets, particularly in minerals, energy, and in agricultural.  Secondly, Canada has more flexibility than the U.S. politically to seek trade accommodations with China, India, countries like that.”

“So I will leave it to you, I leave the fate of the world’s trading system where it deserves to be, namely in the hands of Canada.  And I will leave it to you to pressure your government to pressure the U.S. and our trading partners to do the right thing and get things back moving.  Otherwise, the report I gave you today has grim implications that couldn't come at a worse time for the world economy…You don’t want Balkanization of trade in a time like this.  Maybe we can do something constructive instead.”
 

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Landmark Case on Prostitution in Canada: Ontario Court of Appeal Legalizes Brothels But Not On-Street Solicitations

by Keith Edmund White
Editor-in-Chief

While prostitution is legal in Canada, the federal Criminal Code had outlawed brothels--meaning that sex-workers would have to let clients in their homes, or go to their clients' homes.

But in an sweeping decision, the Court of Appeal for Ontario knocked down this brothel-restriction, finding that it violated Canada's constitution. Critically, while the decision deals with federal law, the Court of Appeal for Ontario decision currently only applies to that province. Thus, assuming the federal government appeals the decision, the Canadian Supreme Court will likely have to step in to settle this constitutionality issue, and that decision could lead to uniform sex-worker regulation through Canada. Also, the Court found that a ban on third parties profiting from prostitution could not extend to bodyguards or drivers, another big victory for Canadian sex-workers.

For the 130 + page decision, from a case lasting nine months and generating 25,000 pages of evidence, click here. I would recommend reading the dissent that hits on a fundamental tension in the decision: constitutional rights trumped federal law from banning brothels, but not allow sex-workers from on-street solicitations.

Here are some links I found particularly helpful in understanding the decision without needing to read the decision:

-A good summary from the Chicago Sun-Times
-The Globe and Mail supports the decision as a "wise compromise"
-The LFPress casts a more critical eye on the decision, noting that it "seems to walk both sides of the road"
-Global Toronto offers a good 'Q & A' with Assistant Dean Bruce Ryder of Osgoode Law School.

Naturally, he decision shows a big difference between the content of the U.S. Bill of Rights and Canada's Charter of Freedoms that was signed into law in 1982.

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Niagara International Moot Court Competition Takes D.C. By Storm

Dear Readers,

Sorry for our recent pause from posting.  But the Niagara International Moot Court competition, being held in Washington, D.C., has stolen the attention of the blog's staff this week.   The competition is sponsored by the Canada United States Law Institute, one of the projects of this rich partnership between Case Western Reserve University and the University of Western Ontario.

Law schools from across the United States and Canada have descended upon the American capital to debate a problem focusing on two critical issues:  (1) when and how nations can invoke self-defense to defend themselves from unconventional threats, and (2) what role does the Responsibility to Protect doctrine play in international law.  This question is particularly relevant as the international community confronts what a UN panel has considered Syrian crimes against humanity against their own citizens.

Tonight we’ll know the team winner, team awards for written memorials, and individual speaking awards.  But, whatever the results, this competition is an incredible learning opportunity for students, and also showcases the important relationship between the United States and Canada.  Special thanks to competition chair (noted arbitration attorney, founder of InvestmentClaims.com, and Columbia Law lecturer) Ian A. Laird, CUSLI board and members who have put on this incredible show, the incredible judges who have spent their Friday and Saturday listening to arguments, and Cox International Law Center director professor Michael Scharf who crafted such a relevant and nuanced problem.

A quick shout-out to the sponsors:  DLA Piper, Fasken Martineau, Baker Hostetler, King & Spalding, Crowell Moring, and the Government of Canada.   

And finally, just look at this esteemed panel of judges for the final rounds:  Former ICTY judge Patricia M. Wald, current Ombudsperson for Security Council 1267 Sanctions Committee Kimberly Prost, and former Co-Prosecutor of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia Robert Petit.  Learn more about the competition here.