Content area
Teljes szöveg
SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
In August 2005, an arbitral panel constituted under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) issued a 301-page award that found in favor of the United States and rejected in full the claims of Methanex Corp.1 Methanex, a Canadian corporation, alleged that two California environmental measures banning a fuel additive MTBE (for which Methanex or its subsidiaries manufactured a key feedstock) violated key investment-protection obligations under NAFTA, particularly its requirement of national treatment of investors and investments. Based on findings that MTBE contaminates drinking water, California banned its use in California gasoline. Methanex, which initially claimed about $1 billion in damages, contended that California's actions were not based on sound science and were, instead, a "sham environmental protection in order to cater to local political interests or in order to protect a domestic industry."2
Methanex essentially alleged that California Governor Gray Davis engineered the MTBE ban in exchange for campaign contributions from the U.S. agribusiness firm Archer Daniel Midlands. It claimed that the ban violated the provisions of NAFTA's Chapter 11 prohibiting nationality-based...