GLOBALIZATION AND TRADE

» Alternatives To Corporate Globalization

» Democracy, Sovereignty and Federalism

» Deregulation and Access to Services

» Import Safety, Environment and Health

» Jobs, Wages and Economic Outcomes

» NAFTA, WTO, Other Trade Pacts

» Other Issues

Trade Data Center

One-stop shop for searchable trade databases, case lists & more

Eyes on Trade

Global Trade Watch blog on globalization & trade. Subscribe to RSS.

Debunking Trade Myths

To hide the facts about failed trade policies, proponents are changing the data

Connect with GTW

What's New - Global Trade Watch


View 'What's New' Archives

Background on the MAI



How and When the MAI Started:



In May 1995 the MAI negotiations began at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a Paris-based organization comprised of 29 mainly developed countries.

The MAI would be the first binding international agreement negotiated by the OECD - traditionally a research arm for the finance ministers of member countries.

MAI Based on NAFTA Model



The MAI is similar to NAFTA's provisions on investment (Chapter 11). Like NAFTA, the MAI:


  • Grants National Treatment and Most Favored Nation status to investors requiring all countries be treated alike (e.g. had South Africa been an OECD member under the MAI, sanctions to end apartheid would have been forbidden) and local and foreign investors be treated exactly the same.
  • Provides direct Investor-to-State Dispute Resolution whereby foreign investors and corporations can directly sue governments if they suspect a violation of the agreement. MAI would apply this extraordinary right to enforce all MAI terms, whereas NAFTA allows private standing only for narrow circumstances. Several companies have already won judgements against governments with awards of tens of millions as of late 2001 and many more cases are pending.
  • Protects investors from loss of profit due to expropriation including both direct or indirect expropriation and measures "tantamount to"expropriation. The MAI's language, which covers measures having "equivalent effect" to expropriation, appears to broaden NAFTA's language even further. In the case with Ethyl, the corporation filed suit against the Canadian parliament on the grounds that mere legislative debate of MMT-related risks constituted a measure "tantamount to" expropriation.
  • Prohibits certain "performance requirements", or conditions for investment (e.g. the federal Community Reinvestment Act).


MAI Based on GATT/ WTO



The MAI broadens the GATT/WTO limitations on national sovereignty in favor of one set of global rules enforced by an unaccountable international tribunal.

The OECD Goal Was to Complete MAI By 1998



U.S. officials negotiating the MAI have indicated that fast-track is the means by which they intend to push the MAI through Congress.

The MAI would be a powerfully enforced consolidation of the OECD non-binding investment guidelines, the strongest provisions of NAFTA and GATT and the strongest features of various bilateral, regional and sectoral investment agreements.

The proposed MAI would be a free standing agreement open to accession by any non-OECD member country. Imagine NAFTA-style investment and dispute resolution terms applied to the whole world.

Copyright © 2014 Public Citizen. Some rights reserved. Non-commercial use of text and images in which Public Citizen holds the copyright is permitted, with attribution, under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons License. This Web site is shared by Public Citizen Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation. Learn More about the distinction between these two components of Public Citizen.


Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation

 

Together, two separate corporate entities called Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation, Inc., form Public Citizen. Both entities are part of the same overall organization, and this Web site refers to the two organizations collectively as Public Citizen.

Although the work of the two components overlaps, some activities are done by one component and not the other. The primary distinction is with respect to lobbying activity. Public Citizen, Inc., an IRS § 501(c)(4) entity, lobbies Congress to advance Public Citizen’s mission of protecting public health and safety, advancing government transparency, and urging corporate accountability. Public Citizen Foundation, however, is an IRS § 501(c)(3) organization. Accordingly, its ability to engage in lobbying is limited by federal law, but it may receive donations that are tax-deductible by the contributor. Public Citizen Inc. does most of the lobbying activity discussed on the Public Citizen Web site. Public Citizen Foundation performs most of the litigation and education activities discussed on the Web site.

You may make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., Public Citizen Foundation, or both. Contributions to both organizations are used to support our public interest work. However, each Public Citizen component will use only the funds contributed directly to it to carry out the activities it conducts as part of Public Citizen’s mission. Only gifts to the Foundation are tax-deductible. Individuals who want to join Public Citizen should make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., which will not be tax deductible.

 

To become a member of Public Citizen, click here.
To become a member and make an additional tax-deductible donation to Public Citizen Foundation, click here.