Browse all documents

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

This document is a submission by non-disputing parties (Bluewater Network, Communities for a Better Environment, and the Center for International Environmental Law) to an arbitration tribunal regarding a dispute between Methanex Corporation and the United States. The submission argues that California's ban on the gasoline additive MTBE was a legitimate exercise of government power to protect public health and the environment, and should therefore be granted substantial deference under NAFTA and international law.

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 authors contend that NAFTA and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) explicitly preserve the right of governments to establish their own levels of domestic environmental protection and to enforce laws to protect the environment.
  • The submission asserts that the 'precautionary principle' of customary international law allows countries to regulate substances that may be harmful to human health even in the absence of conclusive scientific evidence regarding the exact degree or process of harm.
  • The document argues that California's MTBE ban is mandated by international law because access to safe, potable water is a fundamental human right, and states have an obligation to ensure activities under their control do not violate such rights.
  • The submission claims that the determination of 'like circumstances' under NAFTA Article 1102 must account for environmental and health threats; therefore, an investor whose investment poses such a threat is in a different circumstance than one whose investment does not.
  • The authors argue that NAFTA does not require governments to adopt the 'least trade-restrictive' alternative to achieve environmental goals, and that the availability of other methods does not prove an illegitimate intent to discriminate.
  • The submission maintains that California's treatment of other gasoline components differently from MTBE is irrelevant to determining intent, as the decision on the appropriate response to a specific risk is fundamentally political and based on societal benefits and costs.

Cite the original document

APA
Wagner, J. M. (2004). SUBMISSION OF NON-DISPUTING PARTIES. Center for International Environmental Law. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/MethanexAmicusSubmission_Mar04.pdf
Chicago
Wagner, J. Martin. SUBMISSION OF NON-DISPUTING PARTIES. Center for International Environmental Law, 2004. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/MethanexAmicusSubmission_Mar04.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |last1=Wagner |first1=J. Martin |title=SUBMISSION OF NON-DISPUTING PARTIES |publisher=Center for International Environmental Law |date=9 March 2004 |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/MethanexAmicusSubmission_Mar04.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{wagner2004submission, author = {Wagner, J. Martin}, title = {{SUBMISSION OF NON-DISPUTING PARTIES}}, institution = {Center for International Environmental Law}, year = {2004}, month = mar, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/MethanexAmicusSubmission_Mar04.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated