School of Social and Political Sciences - Research Publications

Permanent URI for this collection

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    The contradictions of regionalism in North America
    CAPLING, ANN ; NOSSAL, KR (Cambridge University Press (CUP), 2009-02)
    Abstract Students of regionalism almost reflexively include North America in their lists of regions in contemporary global politics. Inevitably students of regionalism point to the integrative agreements between the countries of North America: the two free trade agreements that transformed the continental economy beginning in the late 1980s – the Canada–US Free Trade Agreement that came into force on 1 January 1989, and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the United States, Mexico, and Canada, that came into force on 1 January 1994 – and the Secutity and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), launched in March 2005. These agreements, it is implied, are just like the integrative agreements that forge the bonds of regionalism elsewhere in the world. We argue that this is a profound misreading, not only of the two free trade agreements of the late 1980s and early 1990s and the SPP mechanism of 2005, but also of the political and economic implications of those agreements. While these integrative agreements have created considerable regionalisation in North America, there has been little of the regionalism evident in other parts of the world. We examine the contradictions of North America integration in order to explain why North Americans have been so open to regionalisation but so resistant to regionalism.
  • Item
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Australia's trade policy dilemmas
    Capling, A (ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD, 2008-06)
  • Item
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Blowback: Investor-state dispute mechanisms in international trade agreements
    Capling, A ; Nossal, KR (WILEY, 2006-04)
    The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) gave unprecedented rights to private investors. These provisions quickly became entrenched in policy and practice, appearing in most multilateral and bilateral trade agreements in the 1990s as American investors began to bring Canada and Mexico to arbitration. However, the Australia–U.S. Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) of 2004 contained no such provisions. The purpose of this article is to explain why enthusiasm for NAFTA‐style protections waned so dramatically after a decade of entrenched practice. We argue that the reason lies in the “blowback,” the unintended and negative consequences created by NAFTA’s Chapter 11, and conclude that the abandonment of NAFTA‐style protections in the AUSFTA sets important precedents for the future of international free trade agreements.
  • Item