Search

This paper addresses the use of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act and the International Emergencies Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), in the US trade policy of the presidency of Donald Trump, towards its North American partners. From a political economy approach and from addressing case studies, the article argues that these laws have been transformed from tools to deal with rival countries, to resources of power to obtain concessions from Canada and Mexico both in the commercial and commercial sphere. in other areas of your relationship. Specifically, for Section 232, the case of steel and aluminum tariffs against Canada and Mexico is addressed. In the case of the IEEPA, reference is made to the tariff threats filed by the United States against Mexico in 2019. Based on this, the article identifies the ways in which the United States authorities have reinterpreted the provisions of the laws to use them as resources that assert their market power in regional negotiations. At the end, the article explains in a general way, a strategic course available for Canada and Mexico, to counteract the contemporary use that the United States has made of its national security laws. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper argues that since the completion of the NAFTA in the early 1990s, there has been too much focus on what governments in Ottawa, Washington, and Mexico City have or have not been doing to deepen North American integration. The NAFTA was an anomaly that obscures the larger history of incrementalism that has shaped North America's political economy. A focus on large, government-led integration projects like the NAFTA as a model for North American integration distracts from an examination of the many connections and processes taking place across borders every day. Security has become fully entrenched as a driving paradigm of North American relations. However, much of the activity in this domain and others is taking place at the bureaucratic, sub-state, and non-state levels rather than via active direction from national leadership. As scholars and analysts of North America, we would do well to move away from the NAFTA as a model for negotiating North America's future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]