Assesing the rules-power debate in farm trade: a case study of the Canadian-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

Abstract

Asking "How have trade disputes over agriculture been settled in North America?", this study examines 11 appeals made to binational panels extablished under Chapter 19 of the canada-U. S. Free Trade Agreement of 1989. By disaggregating the process of dispute settlement into complaints, rulings, country responses, and overall settlement, it reassesses an old debate (whether dispute outcomes are influenced by collective rules or the pursuit of self-help) and sheds new light. Whereas extant studies make the argument, through a study of appeals to G.A.T.T., that collective rules temper the blind pursuit of self-help, this study makes the argument that self-help is equally important an explanation. Whereas the former focus on outcomes which are non-binding, this study focuses on outcomes which are binding. Implications are drawn, at a time when domestic interests, nationalistic sentiments, and supranational pursuits compete to influence policy outcomes at all levels, for agriculture, integration in North America, and dispute settlement at the multilateral level.