Separate Comments on the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues that the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement's investment chapter grants foreign investors excessive rights that exceed those of domestic U.S. investors, violating the Trade Act of 2002. CIEL highlights the risks of the investor-state dispute mechanism, the lack of a general environmental exception, and the use of subjective standards like 'fair and equitable treatment' which could undermine public interest regulations and democratic governance.

• The U.S.-Morocco FTA's investment chapter may violate the Trade Act of 2002 because it does not ensure that foreign investors are denied 'greater substantive rights' than domestic investors. CIEL argues that the use of ad hoc panels not bound by U.S. Supreme Court precedent and the lack of U.S. court review make it impossible to guarantee consistency with U.S. legal norms.
• The inclusion of an investor-state dispute mechanism is criticized for allowing investors to bypass national legal systems, which CIEL claims 'stunts the development' of those systems and threatens the ability of governments to regulate in the public interest.
• The agreement lacks a general environmental exception in its investment chapter, which CIEL asserts makes international investment rules a 'significant threat' to public interest policies. The document notes that while tax laws have a carve-out from expropriation claims, environmental and public health regulations do not.
• CIEL argues that the 'fair and equitable treatment' standard is inherently subjective and lacks a corresponding right under U.S. law, potentially allowing arbitral tribunals to second-guess governmental actions in a way that is 'antithetical to democracy'.
• The expropriation provisions are deemed insufficient because they fail to incorporate critical U.S. Supreme Court principles, such as the requirement that a governmental action must permanently interfere with a property in its entirety to constitute a taking.
• CIEL claims there is no evidence that investment rules are necessary for bilateral relations with Morocco, stating there is no public information suggesting Morocco has mistreated U.S. investors or that its judicial system cannot resolve complaints.

APA

Magraw, D., & Karpatkin, R. H. (2004). Separate Comments on the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement. Center for International Environmental Law. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/TEPAC_Comments_Morocco.pdf

Chicago

Magraw, Daniel, and Rhoda H. Karpatkin. Separate Comments on the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement. Center for International Environmental Law, 2004. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/TEPAC_Comments_Morocco.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |last1=Magraw |first1=Daniel |last2=Karpatkin |first2=Rhoda H. |title=Separate Comments on the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement |publisher=Center for International Environmental Law |date=6 April 2004 |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/TEPAC_Comments_Morocco.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{magraw2004separate, author = {Magraw, Daniel and Karpatkin, Rhoda H.}, title = {{Separate Comments on the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement}}, publisher = {Center for International Environmental Law}, year = {2004}, month = apr, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/TEPAC_Comments_Morocco.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }