NAFTA DOES violate international sovereignty. It simply does.
How does it violate international sovereignty then? All international treaties by definition involve one nation and another nation ceding authority to each other in certain areas. This isn't the same thing as violating international sovereignty. Please provide me with an example of where NAFTA has caused the United States government to do something it did not agree to do.
I don't recall specifics, but in California there was a certain agent in drinking water, I believe, that came from an agent added to gasoline. It was an Canadian company. Anyway, it got into the water of a trailer park, and started giving people (kids especially) all sorts of nasty illnesses and cancer.
The Candian company was Methanex and the agent was MTBE. California law required companies to add MTBE to gasoline in order to address smog concerns. At the time, California did not realize how easily MTBE could escape and contaminate ground water supplies. When it discovered this, it banned the additive.
The California gov't banned its use immediately, and the Canadian government sued the state under NAFTA rules. A secret council meets, in which it is illegal to record what is said, to rule on it.
Methanex sued under Chapter 11 of NAFTA. This is a provision similar to eminent domain rules here in the United States. It says that if a country passes legislation that takes something from foreign investors, they will pay those investors the value of what was taken. It also provides for a NAFTA tribunal to resolve these disputes. In this case, there was no "secret council." Both sides had lawyers and submitted the case to arbitration under Chapter 11.
The NAFTA tribunal dismissed Methanex's claims and ordered them to pay $4 million in legal fees to California..
Also, google "IRONCLAD". They bought a toxic dump in Mexico that was making people sick. Beforehand, the people had shut it down and cancer rates went down. Ironclad, an American company, sued under NAFTA to reopen the plant. Even though the mexican residents of the village didn't want the company in their town, under NAFTA metalclad can do what they please.
The case is Metalclad, not Ironclad. The dump had never been shut down at all, Mexican authorities allowed Metalclad to purchase the dump on the condition that they clean it up in 1993. Metalclad purchased the dump as a result. Local officials objected to this decision by the national government. In 1994, the Governor did a study and found everything OK and approved the continued operations of the dump. In 1995 the Baja California authority also approved the site; but the local authorities denied a building permit.
Metalclad
sued for its damages (what it had paid to buy the dump) since the denial of the building permit stopped them from using it. They won a judgment before the NAFTA Tribunal of $43 million (later reduced to $15.6 million) for the taking. Because the arbitration had taken place in Vancouver, Mexico then sued to overturn the judgment in British Columbia alleging that the arbitration
did not meet requirements under Canadian law. Metalclad still got paid; but the local court ruled that NAFTA had exceeded its jurisdiction and the Metalclad decision now represents the concept that local courts may overrule NAFTA (Not exactly a great case to support your argument that NAFTA tribunals violate sovereignty).
I'd also note that at no point did a NAFTA Tribunal force the village to provide a building permit or even try to order such a result. All they did was say if the village wanted to deny a permit that would allow Metalclad to operate the dump after it had complied with Mexican law, they would have to pay Metalclad for the damages.
I just got done with a 400 level course on International Relations and politics.
If your post is representative of what you were taught, I would ask for my money back.
