COG

Homestead Discussion

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Stumberg concern that Olson analogy of WTO and ICC is wrong analogy - Olson asks for revised proposals

Dear Bob:
        I would like that discussion. Can you refer me to something I should read prior to such a discussion? Will I find that material in your recently purblished study, that I am still going through? Can we best make progress on this by telephone?

        Based on my discussion with you, and my reading of the executive summary of your recent study on International Investment and Local Economic Development (now in the COG library), I was persuaded that my Stock Quid Pro Quo idea should not limit itself to a US Constitutional amendment. That is why I inserted the idea that the quid pro quo should be part of international trade agreements. Where do you think it belongs? What other types of agreements do you think are necessary? Is there anyone currently formulating the proposals to the WTO which you think adequately cover this issue? If so, who is it and what are the proposals? Are any of these going to be presented at the events in November at the WTO or in the teach-ins outside the WTO?

        You are the expert on the relationship between trade laws and local sovereignty. Do you have a more specific suggestion that I should include in my proposal? Are their specific laws I should read?

        Thanks for your help? I look forward to your response.

Deb Olson
        9/25/1999 -0400, you wrote:
>Deb,
>
>In your WTO vs. ICC comparison, I fear that you are lumping a lot of stuff
>together on different, not parallel, levels.  (Whether this misdirects the
>discussion, I am still pondering.)  However, I would suggest that the WTO is
>comparable not to the ICC, but to the entire constitution AND the common law
>of state sovereignty that surrounds the Constitution and to which the
>Constitution defers through the 10th Amendment.
>
>Remember that the WTO is a large family of institutions and agreements.  It
>includes the WTO charter, GATT 1994, 14 multilateral agreements (that apply
>to every member nation) and 4 plurilateral agreements (that apply to a
>relative few nations that joined those agreements).  Most of the WTO
>agreements share common concepts (like national treatment and MFN
>treatment), but there is considerable variation beyond those core concepts,
>and even in how the core concepts are defined.
>
>What the ICC is comparable to are the "relative standards" of WTO agreements
>such as National Treatment and MFN treatment.  The WTO relative treatment
>concepts include police-power type exceptions under GATT 1994, article XX,
>which work in a way that is analogous to the balancing tests for exercise of
>state government power under the ICC.  However, there are not necessarily
>any exceptions to to relative treatment under the 14 WTO multilateral
>agreements.
>
>A major question that looms over any international law debate, including
>yours, is whether and how a non-WTO center of law and power can emerge to
>protect social, environmental or moral interests on a multilateral basis,
>just as there are checks and balances among government powers under the U.S.
>Constitution.
>
>Sorry for such an abstract response, but perhaps we could discuss more
>informally how the taxonomy of constitutional power could be used to refine
>your policy proposals.
>
>Best,
>
>Bob
>
>Robert Stumberg
>stumberg@law.georgetown.edu
>202-662-9603 phone
>202-662-9613 fax
>__________________________
>Harrison Institute for Public Law
>Georgetown University Law Center
>111 F Street, NW - Suite 102
>Washington, DC  20001-2095
>
>>>> Deborah Groban Olson <dgo@esoplaw.com> 09/24 5:59 PM >>>
>Shann Trunbull asked me to define "ICC" as used in my previous policy
>piece. The "ICC" I refer to in my "Stock Quid Pro Quo for Government
>Largesse" piece is the Interstate Commerce Clause (ICC) of the United
>States Constitution. This is the context. I think the WTO trade agreements
>serve the same function for the world as the Interstate Commerce Clause
>does for the US. The purpose of the ICC was to require uninhibited trade
>between the states,  barring all tariffs or other state legislation that
>would inhibit such trade. It has been used over the centuries to create a
>much stronger federal government than the founders imangined, which has had
>primarily positive effects, but perhaps some negative ones as well. The
>important point about the comparison with the WTO, is that the ICC was
>part of a larger Constitution which explicitly protected rights of
>individuals and the  several States.  The WTO negotiated trade agreements
>do not deal with the political and social fallout to civil society which
>they may engender. Those usually are covered by a Constitution. If there
>are agreements between governments on trade that drastically curtail the
>rights of soverign governments to govern, then those international
>agreements need to address other issues of civil society.
>
>Deb Olson
>Attorney Deborah Groban Olson
>Principal
>Shared Equity Strategies, Inc.
>3163 Penobscot Bldg.
>645 Griswold St.
>Detroit, MI 48226
>(ph) 313/ 331-7821  or 964-2460
>(f) 313/ 331-2567     or 964-4065
>
>dgo@EsopLaw.com
>www.EsopLaw.com
>www.Shared-Equity.com
>
>ESOP and stock plan professionals, providing legal, financial and
>administrative guidance to create and maintain employee stock ownership
>plans and other forms of equity compensation.
>
>
>

Deborah Groban Olson
Project Co-ordinator
Capital Ownership Group Project
Ohio Employee Ownership Center
Kent State University
c/o Shared Equity Strategies, Inc.
3163 Penobscot Building
Detroit, MI 48226
(313) 331-7821 or (313) 964-2460
(f) (313) 331-2567
email: dgo@esoplaw.com
web site: http://cog.kent.edu