NAFTA, The North American Free Trade Agreement was signed in January 1994 by the US, Canada and Mexico. It is the world’s largest Free Trade Agreement and has increased economic growth, job creation, and better prices for the consumer in the purchase of goods in all three countries. NAFTA allows goods to exchange freely among the three countries by eliminating tariffs on most of the products traded. The focus, under NAFTA, has been on agriculture, textiles, and automobile manufacturing, but it has also has changed the way these countries deal with disputes, the environment, and Intellectual Property.

The US, through President Trump, has made threats to end NAFTA. Before doing so, it has sought to make changes that would decrease the US trade deficit, mainly with Mexico as the deficit with Canada is much smaller. The deficit with Mexico has reached $55.6 billion or more from imports coming from Mexico with all sides arguing how to fix it. The way that the arguments are handled, disputes mechanisms are also highly debatable. Arbitration, in international law, is the preferred way to do business. There is then no home-court advantage. In fact, some foreign businesses may not want to do business in the US if they must be subjected to our court system. If you have ever been involved in litigation you can attest the US has a lengthy system as compared to other countries.

 In our adversarial system of jurisprudence we are able to request discovery and many times these means questions and answers, called interrogatories. Then we have in-person transcribed, under oath, interviews, called depositions that can go for days. Anyone involved or who may have information that leads to resolving the dispute can be subpoenaed to go through this drooling and sometimes degrading process. Our system also allows for document requests with increasing more laws dealing with electronic documentation rules which allow the adversarial party to have access to even personal cell phones, which may have information that is embarrassing, even if it has documents that are relevant. The discovery phase alone can last for years.

In order to decrease fears of US litigation, or any long drawn out litigation, for that matter, NAFTA has "dispute resolution panels." These panels look at whether or not the NAFTA countries participant is being treated fairly. Under President Trump, the US has claimed that "US court's sovereignty is eroded." He would do away with the panel altogether. Canada and Mexico want to keep them of course.

Other debates center on accusations of one country subsidizing their exports which leads to "dumping" low-cost goods in the other country and making it unfair for the country duped in to compete against the foreign goods. That allows them to dump low-cost lumber into the American market. It unfairly under prices U.S. companies. The resolution panel has ruled in favor of Canada. The Commerce Department has threatened to impose a 20 percent tariff on Canadian lumber imports for dumping into the US.

The use of the other countries property is also electric; Canada and Mexico want to use US roads and the US wants Mexico to end the maquiladora program which allows US companies to set up low-cost factories to assemble finished products and then export back to the US. This program is responsible for a large portion of Mexico's workforce, like 30%! The US argues that these programs undercut the American workforce.

These are just a few of the arguments which could cause the US, under the current administration, to end NAFTA. If it does Canada and Mexico are prepared to turn to the Pacific Alliance which created a free trade zone between Mexico, Colombia, Chile, and Peru.

International trade agreements are far from conflict-free, but then what is? Like trade agreements, international law demands some give and take not "I will take my marbles and go home!" The idea of “making America Great Again” means closing off America. When it began NAFTA envisioned away for all three countries to negotiate fair trade and everyone to win. NAFTA disputes should signal the US to look for ways to reinvent, ways to grow in different industries and to sell to these countries and others to balance the deficits.