When Bill Clinton signed the nafta law in 1993, he said the trade agreement signed “jobs.” U.S. jobs and well-paying American jobs. His independent opponent in the 1992 elections, Ross Perot, warned that fleeing jobs across the southern border would create a “great wake.” The three countries may have an interest in revising the NAFTA investment chapter to reflect recent agreements. U.S. Estva, including NAFTA, and Bilateral Investment Agreements (ILOs) maintain fundamental investor protection, which reflects U.S. legislation, such as the obligation for governments. B to grant non-discriminatory treatment to investors, a minimum standard of treatment and protection against uncompensated expropriations, including provisions.98 Since NAFTA, investment chapters in free trade agreements and the U.S. ILO model have been amended to clarify certain provisions and validate the government`s general law, health or safety outcomes. Investment chapters, in particular the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDR) provision, have experienced enhanced scrutiny in the latest U.S. free trade agreements. NAFTA was the first free trade agreement containing ISDS, allowing investors to obtain arbitration from a host government to resolve disputes over alleged violations of a host government`s investment obligations. Not all changes in North American trade and investment patterns since 1994 are due to NAFTA, as trade has also been influenced by a number of factors. The sharp depreciation of the peso in the late 1990s and the resulting recession in Mexico had a significant impact on trade, as did the rapid growth of the U.S.
economy during most of the 1990s and, later, the economic slowdown caused by the 2008 financial crisis. Trade-related job gains and losses since NAFTA may have accelerated trends that continued before NAFTA and may not be entirely attributable to the trade agreement. Discussions made progress on a number of issues, including telecommunications, pharmacy, chemicals, digital commerce and the fight against corruption. But the way in which the origin of automotive content is measured has proved to be a sensitive point, as the United States fears an influx of Chinese auto parts. Discussions will be further complicated by a World Trade Organization (WTO) proceeding against the United States in December. NAFTA was challenged in the first proposal, mainly because it was the first free trade agreement involving two prosperous and developed countries and one developing country. The political debate around the deal was divided with supporters who argued that the agreement would help create thousands of jobs and reduce income gaps in the region, while opponents warned that the deal would result in huge job losses in the United States as companies relocated their production to Mexico to reduce costs. In reality, NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses that critics feared or the significant economic benefits predicted by supporters. The overall net effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively small, not least because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of U.S. GDP.
However, adjustment costs were incurred by workers and businesses, as the three countries adapted to more open trade and investment. While most agreed that NAFTA led to a higher level of trade and investment, critics argued that these changes had failed to improve living standards in any of the three countries. Many felt that the NAFTA results for Mexico were particularly disappointing. Mexican growth rates have been relatively low since 1994, while inequality and poverty have remained high. From