Wto Multilateral Agreement On Investment
Answer: No, the MAI will not require its members to allow unlimited foreign investment in all sectors of the economy. The MAI will reflect the reality that certain sectors are politically and/or economically sensitive to different countries and are therefore exempt from obligations. The MAI also recognizes that these areas of sensitivity vary from country to country. The draft AMI text reflects U.S. investment legislation, regulations and practices. Its achievement will be to bring other countries closer to the standards that the United States already applies to all investors, whether domestic or foreign. Indeed, the dispute settlement procedures proposed by the MAI are similar to those traditionally contained in the bilateral investment treaties of the United States (as well as in the overwhelming majority of the approximately 1,100 bits worldwide). For example, our investment contracts - such as the proposed MAI - give any country that is a party to the agreement the right to initiate arbitration proceedings against another party and to demand financial compensation if that country does not comply with its contractual obligations. More importantly, it is unlikely that foreign companies in the United States will see a great benefit in pursuing their investment requests through the AMI procedure. Companies tend to resort to investor-state arbitration procedures, which are generally quite costly when they have serious questions about the fairness of national jurisdictions or the availability of appropriate remedies. We expect our OECD partners or other likely signatories to the MAI to conclude that they can get a fair trial in the U.S. courts.
The details of the MAI negotiations were little known until a draft agreement was leaked in March 1997.  The leaks have drawn criticism from various NGOs around the world. As a result, negotiations failed in 1998, when France and other countries gradually withdrew after pressure from a global movement of NGOs, citizens` groups and a number of developing country governments. In April 1998, negotiations were formally suspended for six months.  On 3 December 1998, the OECD announced that "the MAI negotiations are no longer taking place".  Answer: Mai dispute resolution procedures are carefully developed, so that for the United States, the burden of defending claims rests with the federal government, not the states or municipalities. We do not expect foreign investors to bring a significant number of proceedings against the United States under the MAI, simply because we do not believe that the federal government, states or municipalities will have difficulty complying with the MAI provisions, since the current guidelines are already in compliance with the MAI obligations or are in the U.S. schedule. In addition, since NAFTA came into force, no investment requests have been filed against the United States as part of their dispute settlement procedures, and NAFTA contains much of the same type of investment commitments as those negotiated in May. AMI supporters (such as the United States, Canada and several EU member states) continue to promote investment provisions that are similar to regional trade agreements, bilateral investment agreements, bilateral free trade agreements and discussions within the Global Trade Organization, which will be incorporated into the General Agreement on Trade in Services. Before the end of 1998, British Trade Minister Brian Wilson announced that investment negotiations could be transferred to the WTO.
The agreement will therefore be flexible to take into account each country`s priorities and to include annexes in which each country (referring to economic sectors and specific laws and regulations) sets its own country-by-country exceptions to certain MAI obligations, such as. B national treatment, the most favoured treatments and performance requirements.