The Parties' views are summarized as follows:
nothing in... Chapter Twelve (Cross-Border Trade in Services)... shall be construed to prevent the adoption or enforcement by any Party of measures necessary to secure compliance with laws or regulations that are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement, including those relating to health and safety and consumer protection.16
To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the Agreement, the matter referred to the Commission (as set out in the request for a Commission meeting) and to make findings, determinations and recommendations as provided in Article 2016(2).
The Government of Mexico considers that the refusal of the U.S. to grant a certain amount of access to the Mexican transporters, and permitting Mexican persons to establish with the intent to provide transport services, according to the provisions of NAFTA, constitutes a violation of the obligations of liberalizing trade in this sector, as the U.S. obligated itself by Annex I of NAFTA, in addition to breaching other provisions of the treaty, including Chapter Twelve and could cause nullification and impairment of the benefits that Mexico reasonably expects to receive from the treaty.
|GAO||U.S. General Accounting Office|
|FHWA||U.S. Federal Highway Administration|
|FMCSA||U.S. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration|
|FMCSR||U.S. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations|
|FTA||The United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement|
|GATT||General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade|
|ICC||U.S. Interstate Commerce Commission|
|MIS||Mexico's Initial Submission|
|MPHS||Mexico's Post-Hearing Submission|
|MRB||Mexico's Reply Brief|
|MSRB||Mexico's Comments on the Request for a Scientific Review Board|
|NAFTA||The North American Free Trade Agreement|
|SECOFI||Mexico's Secretary of Commerce and Industry|
|SRB||Scientific Review Board|
|TR||Transcript of the Hearing|
|USCS||United States' Counter-Submission|
|USDOT||U.S. Department of Transportation|
|USPHS||United States' Post-Hearing Submission|
|USSS||United States' Second Submission|
|USTR||United States' Trade Representative|
|WTO||World Trade Organization|
April 3, 2000 Mexico to file a second written submission
April 24, 2000 United States to file a second written submission
April 24, 2000 Canada to file a third party submission
May 17, 2000 Hearing in Washington, D.C.
In the case of Canada, our trucking industry is not now, nor has  been, precluded from providing services into that country.... I believe that our national interest is best served by fair and equitable competition between the United States and Canadian trucking interests in our two markets.30
I regret that with respect to Mexico there has not yet been progress sufficient to justify a modification of the moratorium. A substantial disparity remains between the relatively open access afforded Mexican trucking services coming into the United States and the almost complete inability of United States trucking interests to provide service into Mexico. 31
- a team of state officials from the four U.S. border states and federal agencies was to be established with responsibilities for issues relating to the implementation of NAFTA's transportation provisions. The team was to meet through December 17, 1995, and beyond to 'ensure that operations will be as safe and efficient as possible.'
- a joint federal-state comprehensive safety compliance and enforcement strategy applicable to border states was to be implemented, designed to address problems that may arise as a result of increased number of trucks engaged in cross-border operations;
- a broad educational campaign was to be launched with the objective of disseminating information on motor carrier operating requirements in the United States, Mexico and Canada.
Effective today, NAFTA parties will begin accepting applications from foreign motor carriers for the purpose of operating in international commerce in the Mexican and [United States] border states.72
However, the Transportation Secretary stated that the final disposition of pending applications will be held until consultations between the United States and Mexico to further improve their motor carrier safety and security regimes have been completed. To date, the moratorium is still in place.
The United States agreed to phase out its moratorium on crossborder trucking and bus services, and on investment in enterprises established in the United States, that provide such services. This was to be accomplished through a combination of two sets of provisions: (i) the obligation to accord national treatment and most-favored-nation treatment to service providers and investors of another Party, and (ii) the elimination of reservations from the national treatment and most-favored-nation treatment obligation for trucking and bus services, and investment in providers of those services in accordance with the schedules set out in the reservations.79
implementation of the market access commitments for land transportation services was not made contingent upon completion of the standards-compatibility work program.... Rather, the governments contemplated that motor carriers would have to comply fully with the standards of the country in which they were providing service. In other words, there was a clear expectation that a Mexican motor carrier applying for operating authority in the United States would have to demonstrate that it could comply with all requirements imposed on U.S. motor carriers [while transiting the United States].90
a [safety] measure, based on a special safety standard for Mexican carriers, or to enforce that safety standard, it would have to conclude that the U.S. actions were a violation of NAFTA,... [as] the U.S. Government did not comply with the procedural requirements of NAFTA Chapter Nine; it did not conduct an assessment of risk of any kind to support its purported safety standard as required by NAFTA Article 907, and it never published the standard or solicited public comments in compliance with Article 909.105
Provided that such measures are not applied in a manner that would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail or a disguised restriction on trade between the Parties, nothing in... Chapter Twelve (Cross-Border Trade in Services)... shall be construed to prevent the adoption or enforcement by a Party of measures necessary to secure compliance with laws or regulations that are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement, including those relating to health and safety and consumer protection.
[thus, the Appellate Body] held that the requirement that a Party adopt measures reasonably available to it that were the least inconsistent with the GATT derived from the obligation in the introductory clause to Article XX that GATT-inconsistent measures not constitute unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade. It also found that the failure of a government to adequately pursue the possibility of intergovernmental cooperative arrangements for enforcement was conclusive evidence that the government had not adopted measures reasonably available to it that were the least inconsistent with the GATT.123
the "ordinary meaning" of NAFTA, as understood not only by Mexico but also by the United States, was that Mexican-owned carriers would be accorded national and most-favored-nation treatment in their ability to obtain operating authority to provide cross-border truck service in the border states as of three years after the date of signature of NAFTA, and throughout the United States as of six years after the entry into force of NAFTA. This meant that Mexican-owned carriers would be allowed to apply pursuant to the same or equivalent procedures, and be evaluated based on the same criteria, as those applied to U.S. and Canadian carriers, absent a reasonable modification adopted in accordance with an applicable NAFTA exception.131
where a measure is inconsistent with a Party's obligations, it is unnecessary to demonstrate that the measure has had an impact on trade.... Where there have been direct violations of NAFTA, as in this case, there is no requirement for the Panel to make a finding that benefits have been nullified or impaired; it is sufficient to find that the U.S. measures are inconsistent with NAFTA.137
[t]he Mexican safety regime lacks core components, such as comprehensive truck equipment standards and fully functioning roadside inspection or on-site review systems. In light of these important differences in circumstances, and given the experience to-date with the safety compliance record of Mexican trucks operating in the U.S. border zone, the United States decision to delay processing Mexican carriers' applications for operating authority until further progress is made on cooperative safety efforts is both prudent and consistent with U.S. obligations under the NAFTA.142
The Government of Mexico cannot identify its carriers and drivers so that unsafe conduct can be properly assigned and reviewed. While we understand that the Government of Mexico is engaged in an extensive effort to register all of its motor carriers and place them in a database that would facilitate the assignment of safety data, that database does not contain any safety data. Therefore, Mexico cannot track the safety fitness of its carriers and drivers.... Without such carrier safety performance history, the United States cannot conduct a meaningful safety fitness review of Mexican carriers at the application stage.147
a comprehensive system of rigorous vehicle and operator safety standards; enforcement through road side inspections and onsite compliance reviews; strict record-keeping rules; electronic databases that promptly provide inspectors in the field with safety-related data on drivers and motor carriers; and a substantial commitment of enforcement resources and personnel.151
the United States to license the operation of Mexican trucking firms in circumstances in which: (1) serious concerns persist regarding their overall safety record; (2) Mexico is still developing first-line regulatory and enforcement measures needed to address trucking safety standards; and (3) essential bilateral cooperative arrangements are not fully in place.153
to prove that a particular measure adopted or maintained by another NAFTA Party is inconsistent with Articles 1202 and 1203, the complaining Party must demonstrate each of the material elements of those [a]rticles. Those include showing: 1) the existence of one or more measures adopted or maintained by a Party; 2) that the measure(s) relate to crossborder trade in services; 3) the treatment accorded by the measure(s); 4) the extent to which that treatment may favor domestic, or certain foreign, service providers over the providers of the complaining Party; 5) the relevant "circumstances" under which that treatment is accorded; and 6) whether those circumstances are "like".155
Most importantly, it has failed to describe the "circumstances" under which the United States is treating Mexican Firms for safety purposes. Moreover, Mexico has also neglected to demonstrate that those circumstances are "like" the circumstances that pertain to the regulation of U.S. and Canadian trucking companies.156
the Congress has not granted the U.S. Department of Transportation ("DOT" or "Department") the authority to require such transit carriers to seek operating authority. Therefore, transit operations are unaffected by the moratorium on the issuance of operating authority to Mexican motor carriers for operations outside the commercial zone. All firms operating in the United States, however, regardless of whether they are subject to such registration requirements, are subject to DOT's safety jurisdiction.184
U.S.-owned, Mexican-domiciled carriers and "grandfathered" carriers are unaffected by the statutory moratorium and thus are also permitted to transport goods from Mexico to the United States beyond the border zone.185
the relevant issue is whether the U.S. actions are consistent with its Chapter Twelve national treatment and MFN obligations in light of the different circumstances applicable to U.S. and Canadian trucking firms, on the one hand, and Mexican trucking firms on the other... it is acting reasonably and appropriately by delaying the processing of Mexican firms' applications for operating authority while U.S. and Mexican transportation officials work cooperatively to establish adequate safety enforcement tools to ensure that the grant of additional operating authority to Mexican firms does not undermine highway safety. Applying NAFTA's national treatment and MFN obligations to this set of facts turns on a close analysis of highway safety issues, not abstract arguments regarding "conditionality".191
that 'nothing in... Chapter Twelve (Cross-Border Trade in Services)... shall be construed to prevent the adoption or enforcement by any Party of measures necessary to secure compliance with laws or regulations that are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement, including those relating to health and safety and consumer protection.'196
would be subject to an Article 2101 exception. As the United States has shown, differential treatment for Mexican carriers is warranted by safety concerns, and is thus consistent with the U.S. obligations under the national treatment and MFN provisions of Chapter Twelve. For the very same reasons, (and in the event that the Panel had needed to examine this issue in response to a nullification or impairment claim), the U.S. measure would fall squarely within the scope of Article 2101(2).204
The subjective intentions inhabiting the minds of individual legislators or regulators do not bear upon the inquiry, if only because they are not accessible to treaty interpreters. It does not follow, however, that the statutory purposes or objectives-that is, the purpose or objectives of a Member's legislature and government as a whole-to the extent that they are given objective expression in the statute itself, are not pertinent.209
A blanket refusal to permit a person of Mexico to obtain operating authority to provide cross-border truck services... would, on its face, be less favorable than the treatment accorded to United States truck service providers in like circumstances.212
Canada takes a similar position with respect to Article 1102 (national treatment for investment).213
Unless there is a difference in circumstances between a Mexican investor seeking a license in the United States and a United States investor seeking a similar license, the Mexican investor is entitled to like treatment. [Therefore, m]aintaining a regulation that requires the licensing authority to deny a license to a Mexican investor because the investor is Mexican accords less favorable treatment to a Mexican investor than to a like [United States] investor.214
- the differences between the U.S. and Canadian truck safety regulatory regimes, on the one hand, and the Mexican regime, on the other;
- the role that safety enforcement in a carrier's home country plays in ensuring truck safety in other countries where a carrier operates;
- the practicability and effectiveness of using border inspections as the primary means of ensuring the safety of Mexican-domiciled carriers; and
- the significance of available data on out-of-service rates for Mexican domiciled trucking firms.218
a) the differences between U.S. and Canadian government oversight of truck safety on the one hand, and the Mexican government oversight of truck safety, on the other;
b) the importance of Mexican government oversight of truck safety in promoting safety for carriers operating both within Mexico and within the United States;
c) in the absence of strong governmental oversight in Mexico, whether U.S. governmental safety regulations can be practicably or effectively enforced through border inspections;
d) in the absence of strong governmental oversight in Mexico, whether U.S. governmental safety regulations can be practicably or effectively enforced through operating-authority application procedures for Mexican carriers;
e) the significance of available data on out-of-service rates for Mexican motor carriers... [and]... whether it is significant to classify carriers as short-haul versus long-haul carriers;
f) the role of intergovernmental cooperative programs, such as complete, real-time, interoperable databases, in effectively enforcing safety regulations with respect to trucks, drivers and carriers; and
g) whether U.S. governmental safety regulations can be practicably or effectively enforced with respect to drivers, carriers, and trucks not subject to comprehensive, integrated safety oversight systems under their domestic laws.221
a) the essential facts on which the United States was seeking a report... "were not issues in dispute;"
b) "[i]t was extraordinary that the United States should make its request at such a late date [May 16, 2000], after giving no hint in its prior written submissions that it believed the Panel had any need for advice from an SRB;"
c) "the United States itself has never undertaken the type of evaluation it was seeking from an SRB, and its decision not to implement NAFTA therefore could not have been based on such an evaluation;" and
d) "NAFTA's deadlines for this dispute settlement procedure have already been exceeded, and creation of an SRB would lead to further extensive delays."227
Upon consideration of the request by the United States for a Scientific Review Board and Mexico's response to that request, the Panel determines that there shall be no Scientific Review Board constituted at this stage.
There have been no developments in the proceeding since July 10, 2000 that have caused the Panel to reconsider its decision.
The objectives of this Agreement, as elaborated more specifically through its principles and rules, including national treatment, most-favored-nation [sic] treatment and transparency, are to:
a) eliminate barriers to trade in, and facilitate the crossborder movement of, goods and services between the territories of the Parties;
b) promote conditions of fair competition in the free trade area;
c) increase substantially investment opportunities in the territories of the Parties;
d) provide adequate and effective protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights in each Party's territory;
e) create effective procedures for the implementation and application of this Agreement, for its joint administration and for the resolution of disputes; and
f) establish a framework for further trilateral, regional and multilateral cooperation to expand and enhance the benefits of this Agreement.
[A]s a free trade agreement, NAFTA has the specific objective of eliminating barriers to trade among the three contracting Parties. The principles and rules through which the objectives of NAFTA are elaborated are identified in NAFTA Article 102(1) as including national treatment, most-favored-nation treatment, and transparency. Any interpretation adopted by the Panel must, therefore, promote rather than inhibit NAFTA's objectives. Exceptions to obligations of trade liberalization must perforce be viewed with caution.234
The Panel also notes, however, that the Preamble of NAFTA reflects a recognition that the Parties intended to "preserve their flexibility to safeguard the public welfare."
If these criteria are insufficient, there may then be recourse to supplementary means of interpretation, as provided under Article 32 of the Vienna Convention.241 The Panel must therefore commence with the identification of the plain and ordinary meaning of the words, in the context in which the words appear and considering them in the light of the object and purpose of the treaty.242 Only if the ordinary meaning of the words established through the study and analysis of the context, seems to contradict the object and purpose of the treaty, may other international rules on interpretation be resorted to for the interpretation of the provision.243 In this proceeding, the Panel has found it unnecessary to go beyond the dictates of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention.
The United States reservation from certain obligations in Chapters 11 and 12 for non-conforming measures in the land transportation sub-sector, set out in NAFTA Annex I at pages I-U-18 to I-U-20, provides for a phase-out of these non-conforming measures.... At the end of the phase-out period, the obligations reserved against apply to the United States, subject only to any reservations that have not yet been phased out or any other applicable exceptions.254
1. The Schedule of a Party sets out, pursuant to Articles 1108(1) (Investment), 1206(1) (Cross-Border Trade in Services) and 1409(4) (Financial Services), the reservations taken by that Party with respect to existing measures that do not conform with obligations imposed by:
(a) Article 1102, 1202 or 1405 (National Treatment),
(b) Article 1103, 1203 or 1406 (Most-Favored-Nation Treatment),
(c) Article 1205 (Local Presence),
(d) Article 1106 (Performance Requirements), or
(e) Article 1107 (Senior Management and Boards of Directors),
and, in certain cases, sets out commitments for immediate or future liberalization.
2. Each reservation sets out the following elements:
(a) Sector refers to the general sector in which the reservation is taken;
(b) Sub-Sector refers to the specific sector in which the reservation is taken;
(c) Industry Classification refers, where applicable, to the activity covered by the reservation according to domestic industry classification codes;
(d) Type of Reservation specifies the obligation referred to in paragraph 1 for which a reservation is taken;
(e) Level of Government indicates the level of government maintaining the measure for which a reservation is taken;
(f) Measures identify the laws, regulations or other measures, as qualified, where indicated, by the Description element, for which the reservation is taken. A measure cited in the Measures element (i) means the measure as amended, continued or renewed as of the date of entry into force of this Agreement, and (ii) includes any subordinate measure adopted or maintained under the authority of and consistent with the measure;
(g) Description sets out commitments, if any, for liberalization on the date of entry into force of this Agreement, and the remaining non-conforming aspects of the existing measures for which the reservation is taken; and
(h) Phase-Out sets out commitments, if any, for liberalization after the date of entry into force of this Agreement.
3. In the interpretation of a reservation, all elements of the reservation shall be considered. A reservation shall be interpreted in the light of the relevant provisions of the Chapters against which the reservation is taken. To the extent that :
(a) the Phase-Out element provides for the phasing out of non-conforming aspects of measures, the Phase-Out element shall prevail over all other elements;
(b) the Measures element is qualified by a liberalization commitment from the Description element, the Measures element as so qualified shall prevail over all other elements;255 and
(c) the Measures element is not so qualified, the Measures element shall prevail over all other elements, unless any discrepancy between the Measures element and the other elements considered in their totality is so substantial and material that it would be unreasonable to conclude that the Measures element should prevail, in which case the other elements shall prevail to the extent of that discrepancy.
4. Where a Party maintains a measure that requires that a service provider be a citizen, permanent resident or resident of its territory as a condition to the provision of a service in its territory, a reservation for that measure taken with respect to Article 1202, 1203 or 1205 or Article 1404, 1405 or 1406 shall operate as a reservation with respect to Article 1102, 1103 or 1106 to the extent of that measure.
Sector : Transportation
Sub-Sector : Land Transportation
Industry Classification : SIC 4213 Trucking, except Local
SIC 4215 Courier Services, Except by Air
SIC 4131 Intercity and Rural Bus Transportation
SIC 4142 Bus Charter Service, Except Local
SIC 4151 School Buses (limited to interstate transportation not related to school activity)
Type of Reservation : National Treatment (Articles 1102, 1202) Most-Favored-Nation Treatment (Articles 1103, 1203) Local Presence (Article 1205)
Level of Government : Federal
Measures : 49 U.S.C.§10922(1)(1) and (2); 49 U.S.C.§10530(3); 49 U.S.C.§§ 10329,10330 and 1170519; 19 U.S.C. §1202; 49 C.F.R. § 1044 Memorandum of Understanding Between the United States of America and the United Mexican States on Facilitation of Charter/Tour Bus Service, December 3, 1990
As qualified by paragraph 2 of the Description element
Description: Cross-Border Services
1. Operating authority from the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) is required to provide interstate or cross-border bus or truck services in the territory of the United States. A moratorium remains in place on new grants of operating authority for persons of Mexico.
2. The moratorium does not apply to the provision of Cross-Border charter or tour bus services.
3. Under the moratorium, persons of Mexico without operating authority may operate only within ICC Border Commercial Zones, for which ICC operating authority is not required. Persons of Mexico providing truck services, including for hire, private, and exempt services, without operating authority are required to obtain a certificate of registration from the ICC to enter the United States and operate to or from the ICC Border Commercial Zones. Persons of Mexico providing bus services are not required to obtain an ICC certificate of registration to provide these services to or from the ICC Border Commercial Zones.
4. Only persons of the United States, using U.S. registered and either U.S. built or duty paid trucks or buses, may provide truck or bus service between points in the territory of the United States.
5. The moratorium has the effect of being an investment restriction because enterprises of the United States providing bus or truck services that are owned or controlled by persons of Mexico may not obtain ICC operating authority.
Phase-out: Cross-Border Services
A person of Mexico will be permitted to obtain operating authority to provide:
(a) three years after the date of signature of this Agreement, cross-border truck services to or from border states (California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas), and such persons will be permitted to enter and depart the territory of United States through different ports of entry;
(b) three years after the date of entry into force of this Agreement, cross-border scheduled bus services; and
(c) six years after the date of entry into force of this Agreement, cross-border truck services.
A person of Mexico will be permitted to establish an enterprise in the United States to provide:
(a) three years after the date of signature of this Agreement, truck services for the transportation of international cargo between points in the United States; and
(b) seven years after the date of entry into force of this Agreement, bus services between points in the United States.
The moratorium will remain in place on grants of authority for the provision of truck services by persons of Mexico between points in the United States for the transportation of goods other than international cargo.
1. Subject to paragraph 3, each Party shall accord to persons of the other Party treatment no less favourable [sic] than that accorded in like circumstances to its persons with respect to the measures covered by this Chapter [services, investment and temporary entry].
3. Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2, the treatment a Party accords to persons of the other Party may be different from the treatment the Party accords its persons provided that:
a) the difference in treatment is no greater than that necessary for prudential, fiduciary, health and safety, or consumer protection reasons;
b) such different treatment is equivalent in effect to the treatment accorded by the Party to its persons for such reasons; and
c) prior notification of the proposed treatment has been given in accordance with Article 1803.
The provision in the FTA also imposed the burden of establishing the consistency of the differential treatment with the above requirements on the party proposing or according different treatment.287
Provided that such measures are not applied in a manner that would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail or a disguised restriction on [international] trade between the Parties, nothing in... Chapter Twelve (Cross-Border Trade in Services)... shall be construed to prevent the adoption of enforcement by any Party of measures necessary to secure compliance with laws or regulations that are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement, including those relating to health and safety and consumer protection.
Article 1102: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
2. Each Party shall accord to investments of investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments of its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments....
Article 1103: Most-Favored-Nation Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investors of any other Party or of a non-Party with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
2. Each Party shall accord to investments of investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments of investors of any other Party or of a non-Party with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
Article 1104: Standard of Treatment
Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party and to investments of investors of another Party the better of the treatment required by Articles 1102 and 1103.
A person of Mexico will be permitted to establish an enterprise in the United States to provide:
(a) three years after the date of signature of this Agreement [December 18, 1995], truck services for the transportation of international cargo between points in the United States; and
(b) seven years after the date of entry into force of this Agreement [January 1, 2001], bus services between points in the United States.
The moratorium will remain in place on grants of authority for the provision of truck services by persons of Mexico between points in the United States for the transportation of goods other than international cargo.
operating restrictions imposed formerly by the ICC and now by the USDOT in effect disallow new grants of operating authority to U.S. carriers owned or controlled by Mexican carriers. In order for the United States to obtain investment rights in Mexico, the United States agreed to take a comparable step by committing to modify the moratorium to permit Mexican nationals to own or control companies established in the United States to transport international cargo between points in the United States.320
Nor has the United States argued that different circumstances exist which would justify differential treatment in connection with investments by Mexican investors in U.S. domiciled companies.
On safety, the base defense goes to the services. We have a separate statement and position on the investments. What we said on investment is Mexico brought this case, [therefore] it's up to Mexico to prove its point.
This is not a safety case with that. The situation, I think, is quite forthright and clear enough. The investment restriction arose from the moratorium, it's part of the moratorium that is still in place.
When the safety issues are resolved, we would modify the moratorium to handle the investment issues. In our view, the investments has been a side show....
Mexican firms generally don't have capital investment in the United States. They haven't been pressing the United States on that. The services case is the core of this, and when the services case is resolved, the investment case will be resolved. What we said, is [that] our brief simply says Mexico has to prove its violation.322
In essence, the United States has effectively conceded that the safety concerns, which are the claimed basis of the U.S. refusal to implement its cross-border service obligations, are not applicable to investment.
Already registered ?