U.S. NAFTA Negotiating Objectives Fail to Put Citizens First

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues that the U.S. NAFTA negotiating objectives are ambiguous and fail to protect the public interest. Key concerns include the lack of a stance against Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), the potential for 'regulatory coherence' to undermine environmental and health standards, and the promotion of fossil fuel investment over green energy. CIEL calls for binding environmental protections, compliance with the Paris Agreement, and increased transparency in the negotiation process.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • The U.S. negotiating objectives for NAFTA are described as neither detailed nor comprehensive, often copying the 2015 Trade Promotion Act (TPA) requirements word for word and failing to explain how the agreement will further TPA objectives.
  • The Trump administration's failure to take a position on Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) is highlighted as a risk, as this mechanism allows corporations to sue governments for implementing environmental, labor, and health regulations.
  • The objectives' call for 'regulatory compatibility' and the use of 'impact assessments' to avoid 'unnecessary redundancies' may lead to a 'race to the bottom' that blocks regulations protecting against the impacts of new chemicals or technology.
  • The negotiating objectives promote investment in energy and energy transmission without promoting green energy, which CIEL argues ignores climate change and may strengthen protections for foreign investment in fossil fuels, particularly regarding Mexico's oil and gas reserves.
  • Current environmental enforcement in trade agreements is deemed ineffective; CIEL argues that NAFTA should include binding requirements for Paris Agreement compliance and allow citizens to bring claims based solely on environmental harm.

Cite the original document

APA
Cooper, A. J. (2017). U.S. NAFTA Negotiating Objectives Fail to Put Citizens First. Center for International Environmental Law. https://www.ciel.org/u-s-nafta-negotiating-objectives-fail-put-citizens-first/
Chicago
Cooper, Anthony J. U.S. NAFTA Negotiating Objectives Fail to Put Citizens First. Center for International Environmental Law, 2017. https://www.ciel.org/u-s-nafta-negotiating-objectives-fail-put-citizens-first/.
Wikipedia
{{cite press release |last1=Cooper |first1=Anthony J. |title=U.S. NAFTA Negotiating Objectives Fail to Put Citizens First |publisher=Center for International Environmental Law |date=19 July 2017 |url=https://www.ciel.org/u-s-nafta-negotiating-objectives-fail-put-citizens-first/ |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@misc{cooper2017nafta, author = {Cooper, Anthony J.}, title = {{U.S. NAFTA Negotiating Objectives Fail to Put Citizens First}}, publisher = {Center for International Environmental Law}, year = {2017}, month = jul, url = {https://www.ciel.org/u-s-nafta-negotiating-objectives-fail-put-citizens-first/}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated