USMCA: Legal Enforcement of the Labor and Environment Provisions

May 14, 2021 R46793

USMCA: Legal Enforcement of the Labor and
May 14, 2021
Environment Provisions
Nina M. Hart
Some Members of Congress have expressed concern about the effectiveness of dispute settlement
Legislative Attorney
mechanisms in the United States’ free trade agreements (FTAs), especially in the context of the

former North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which entered into force in 1994.
NAFTA was the first U.S. FTA to include significant labor and environmental provisions. To

enforce these provisions, found in two side agreements to NAFTA, the Agreement included
several cooperative and formal dispute settlement mechanisms. These mechanisms were distinct from others that applied to
most of NAFTA’s provisions. Since 2002, Congress’s trade negotiating objectives have stated that the U.S. Trade
Representative must seek to ensure that an FTA’s generally applicable dispute settlement mechanism covers labor and
environmental provisions, and must also improve the effectiveness of all dispute settlement mechanisms.
The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which replaced NAFTA when it entered into force on July 1,
2020, builds on NAFTA and more recent FTA practice, subjecting the Agreement’s labor and environment obligations to the
general state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism that governs most of the other provisions. This mechanism, found in
USMCA’s Chapter 31, creates a system through which a USMCA party can request that a panel hear a dispute and issue
nonbinding recommendations as to how the parties should resolve it. Chapter 31 draws significantly on the NAFTA model,
but also attempts to resolve some issues that arose in NAFTA and other U.S. FTA disputes. First, it attempts to eliminate a
substantive hurdle to enforcing labor and environmental obligations by creating a rebuttable presumption that a failure to
enforce certain labor or environmental laws is done “in a manner affecting trade or investment between” the USMCA parties.
Second, it provides for more detailed procedural rules to prevent parties from blocking the formation of a panel. USMCA is
the first U.S. FTA to specify panels must have three or five members, and creates specific rules for each scenario; it remains
to be seen how well they will work in practice. As drafted, some of the rules create ambiguities that arise with panels of three
and when there are multiple vacancies on a panel but the parties cannot agree on whom to appoint. The USMCA parties
could opt to amend the relevant procedural rules to address these issues if problems arise in future disputes.
USMCA also contains several mechanisms designed to enforce only the labor and environmental obligations. To enforce the
labor provisions, the Agreement includes a cooperative labor dialogue and facility-specific rapid response mechanism. The
dialogue process provides a relatively informal way to settle a potential dispute. By contrast, the rapid response mechanism, a
new dispute settlement tool in U.S. FTAs, functions similarly to the Chapter 31 process by permitting the parties to request a
panel to resolve disputes. Unlike the Chapter 31 process created to address a country’s failure to respect USMCA obligations,
however, the rapid response mechanism addresses individual facilities’ failures to respect the right of free association and
collective bargaining. An innovative feature are the penalties set out in the Agreement to address situations in which a
USMCA party fails to act in good faith with regard to the rapid response mechanism. Although USMCA countries might
attempt to raise failure to act in good faith claims with regard to other dispute settlement mechanisms, the Agreement does
not expressly allow such a claim, so dispute panels might reach different conclusions as to whether they may consider such
claims.
USMCA takes a similar approach to enforcement of environmental obligations, although it does not create a panel-based
dispute resolution system in addition to the Chapter 31 mechanism. The Environment Chapter instead provides for two
cooperation-based mechanisms. First, it encourages dispute resolution via cooperative activities to address situations when a
party fails to enforce its environmental laws “through a sustained or recurring course of action or inaction in a manner
affecting trade or investment.” Second, USMCA includes a U.S.-Mexico customs verification mechanism to address
concerns that one of these countries is not fulfilling its obligations to promote sustainability and conservation, and to take
steps to combat the illegal take or trade in wild flora and fauna, fish, and forest products.
As of this writing, one complaint involving U.S. labor obligations has been filed that could potentially lead to formal dispute
settlement proceedings under Chapter 31 between the United States and Mexico, and two potential claims involving the right
to free association and collective bargaining at facilities in Mexico have been made public, which could lead to formal
proceedings under the U.S.-Mexico rapid response mechanism. In addition, the United States and Canada have initiated two
Chapter 31 disputes against each other involving other obligations. Although all of these disputes are in early stages, the
manner in which they proceed may shed light on the effectiveness of the dispute settlement mechanisms involved. No dispute
proceedings involving the environment provisions have yet been initiated.
Congressional Research Service

USMCA: Enforcing the Labor and Environment Provisions

Introduction
The effectiveness of dispute settlement mechanisms in trade agreements, including their
functionality and scope of application, is an issue of long-standing interest to Members of
Congress. Some of this interest stems from experiences with the former North American Free
Trade Agreement’s (NAFTA’s) general state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism and the
Agreement’s separate dispute settlement mechanisms for labor and environmental obligations
specified in side agreements. The NAFTA side agreements on labor and environment focused
mainly on cooperative mechanisms to resolve disputes, and limited disputes that could lead to
trade countermeasures (e.g., higher tariffs) to a single type of claim—a “persistent pattern of
failure” to “effectively enforce” specified types of domestic laws.1 Although many observers and
policymakers credit NAFTA for raising labor and environmental standards, others contend that
the Agreement’s provisions were weak and largely unenforceable.2
Building on these early experiences, Congress included more detailed negotiating objectives on
dispute settlement mechanisms in subsequent trade promotion authority (TPA) legislation. In the
Trade Act of 2002, Congress asked the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to ensure that the
United States’ “principal negotiating objectives,” which included labor and environment issues,3
were treated “equally with respect to,” among other things, “the ability to resort to dispute
settlement under the applicable agreement.”4 Following an agreement reached between
congressional leaders and the George W. Bush Administration on May 10, 2007 (known as the
“May 10th Agreement”),5 U.S. free trade agreements (FTAs), including USMCA, adopted this
approach, applying the general state-to-state dispute settlement mechanisms to labor and
environment provisions, albeit in modified forms.6
Reflecting continued congressional interest in dispute settlement mechanisms, the most recent
form of TPA, the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015,7 also
includes detailed negotiating objectives on the subject. It asks the USTR “to ensure that

1 See North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation arts. 27–41 (Jan. 1, 1994), http://www.sice.oas.org/
trade/nafta/Environ.asp [hereinafter NAAEC]; North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation arts. 27–41 (Jan. 1,
1994), http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/nafta/Labor1.asp [hereinafter NAALC]; see generally North American Free Trade
Agreement, Dec. 17, 1992, 107 Stat. 2057, 32 I.L.M. 289 [hereinafter NAFTA].
2 For more information, see CRS Report R42965, The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), by M.
Angeles Villarreal and Ian F. Fergusson; CRS Report R44981, The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement
(USMCA), by M. Angeles Villarreal and Ian F. Fergusson; Steve Charnovitz, The NAFTA Environmental Side
Agreement: Implications for Environmental Cooperation, Trade Policy, and American Treatymaking, 8 TEMP. INT’L &
COMP. L.J. 257, 258 (1994) (discussing the negotiation of the labor and environmental side agreements).
3 Pub. L. No. 107-210 (codified at 19 U.S.C. § 3802(b)(11)). Congress also asked USTR to ensure that dispute
settlement mechanisms in trade agreements resolve disputes “in an effective, timely, transparent, equitable, and
reasoned manner, requiring determinations based on facts and the principles of the agreements, with the goal of
increasing compliance with the agreements.” Id. § 3802(b)(12)(A).
4 Id. § 3802(b)(12)(G)(i).
5 Off. of the U.S. Trade Representative, Bipartisan Trade Deal (May 2007), https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/
factsheets/2007/asset_upload_file127_11319.pdf; Trade Resource Center: May 10th Agreement, HOUSE WAYS &
MEANS COMM., https://waysandmeans.house.gov/media-center/tpp-focus.
6 See, e.g., U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement arts. 16.7.6, 17.11.6, U.S.-Pan., June 28, 2007, 125 Stat. 427;
U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement arts. 17.7.6, 18.12.6, U.S.-Peru, Apr. 12, 2006, 121 Stat. 1455 [hereinafter U.S.-
Peru TPA]; Free Trade Agreement between the United States of America and the Republic of Korea arts. 19.7.4,
20.9.4, U.S.-S. Kor., June 30, 2007, 125 Stat. 428 [hereinafter KORUS].
7 Pub. L. No. 114-26 (codified at 19 U.S.C. § 4201 et seq.).
Congressional Research Service
1

USMCA: Enforcing the Labor and Environment Provisions

enforceable labor and environment obligations are subject to the same dispute settlement and
remedies as other enforceable obligations under” any FTA entered into using TPA authority.8
USMCA entered into force on July 1, 2020,9 with updated dispute settlement mechanisms. This
report first describes the general dispute settlement mechanism that applies to a majority of
USMCA obligations, including the labor and environment obligations. It then discusses how the
Agreement builds on or modifies the general mechanism to address enforcement of the labor and
environment provisions. Third, the report describes other mechanisms created to resolve labor
and environmental disputes.
Chapter 31 Dispute Settlement
The primary means through which the USMCA parties (i.e., Canada, Mexico, and the United
States) may formally resolve potential issues is through the state-to-state dispute settlement
mechanism established in Chapter 31 of the Agreement. Chapter 31 envisions two forms of
disputes—one party brings a claim against another party or two parties bring a claim against the
third party—and establishes procedures to address both scenarios.
When May a State Invoke Chapter 31?
To bring a claim against another USMCA party, the complaining party must satisfy two
conditions. First, the contested measure (i.e., the actual or proposed domestic law, regulation, or
practice) or conduct must implicate a provision that is subject to the Chapter 31 dispute
settlement framework. Although most USMCA provisions fall within Chapter 31’s scope, there
are exceptions. In some cases, the Agreement excludes an entire chapter from dispute settlement,
as with the Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Chapter.10 In other cases, a chapter falls outside
the Chapter 31 process, but alternative dispute settlement mechanisms apply. For instance, the
Competition Chapter provides for consultations between the parties as the exclusive means for
addressing disputes involving that Chapter.11 Furthermore, sometimes Chapter 31 applies, but on
a restricted basis, as with the Good Regulatory Practices Chapter, which permits use of Chapter
31 only to address a “sustained or recurring course of action or inaction that is inconsistent” with
a party’s obligations.12
Second, the complaining party or parties must be able to frame the conduct or measure in dispute
in one of the following ways:

8 Id. § 4201(b)(10)(H). In language identical to that in the Trade Act of 2002, one objective seeks to ensure that dispute
settlement mechanisms resolve issues “in an effective, timely, transparent, equitable, and reasoned manner, requiring
determinations based on facts and the principles of the agreements, with the goal of increasing compliance with the
agreements.” Id. § 4201(b)(16)(A).
9 See Letter from Robert E. Lighthizer, U.S. Trade Representative, to Richard Neal, Chairman of the House Comm. on
Ways & Means (Apr. 24, 2020), https://waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/
documents/USMCA%20Notification%20Neal.pdf; Statement by the Deputy Prime Minister on the Entry-into-Force of
the New NAFTA (June 30, 2020), https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/statements/2020/06/30/statement-deputy-prime-minister-
entry-force-new-nafta.
10 United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement arts. 25.7, 26.3, Dec.10, 2019, 134 Stat. 11 [hereinafter USMCA].
11 Id. arts. 21.6, 21.7. Similarly, matters involving antidumping and countervailing duty determinations and practices
fall outside the scope of Chapter 31, but a separate state-to-state dispute settlement procedure exists to address these
matters. Id. arts. 10.5.3, 10.8–10.18.
12 Id. art. 28.20.
Congressional Research Service
2

USMCA: Enforcing the Labor and Environment Provisions

1. it “is or would be inconsistent with an obligation of this Agreement”;
2. it demonstrates a party has “failed to carry out an obligation of this Agreement”;
3. it is not inconsistent with the Agreement, but it nullifies or impairs a benefit that
the complaining party “could reasonably have expected to accrue to it under” the
following chapters: 2 through 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 20;13 or
4. it involves a disagreement with regard to the interpretation or application of the
Agreement.14
Measures and conduct that might meet both conditions include a party’s failure to enact domestic
laws to implement an obligation or introduction of a domestic law that creates an inconsistency
with an obligation. For instance, parties must “maintain a legal framework governing electronic
transactions consistent with the principles of the [United Nations Commission on International
Trade Law (UNCITRAL)] Model Law on Electronic Commerce 1996.”15 Failure to establish or
maintain laws implementing this obligation might expose a party to an allegation that it has not
satisfied its USMCA obligations. Similarly, the parties may not “require as a condition for
determining that a trademark is well-known that the trademark has been registered in the Party or
in another jurisdiction, included on a list of well-known trademarks, or given prior recognition as
a well-known trademark.”16 Thus, if a party’s domestic law on protection of trademarks required
registration of a trademark in another jurisdiction to qualify as a “well-known trademark,” then
another party could potentially initiate a dispute alleging the domestic law is inconsistent with
USMCA obligations.
Whether the application of a measure or conduct may nullify or impair a benefit that a party may
have reasonably expected to obtain by entering into the Agreement is often difficult to assess,
particularly when the measure or conduct does not violate a trade obligation on its face. Perhaps
reflecting the difficulty of proving nullification or impairment claims, parties raise these claims
infrequently. For example, under NAFTA and the preceding Canada-U.S. FTA (CUSFTA),17 one
such case was brought.18 This CUSFTA case illustrates how such a claim might be framed. In
Puerto Rico—UHT Milk, Canada alleged that Puerto Rico nullified or impaired a benefit under
CUSFTA by adopting a new standard for producing ultra-high temperature processing milk (UHT
milk) to align its sanitary standards with those of the rest of the United States, thereby effectively
excluding Canadian UHT milk from the Puerto Rican market.19 The panel agreed, holding that
Canada had a reasonable expectation under CUSFTA that its UHT milk would be allowed into
U.S. markets if it was produced to standards equivalent to those used by the United States. Thus,
the panel found that Canada could reasonably expect that the United States would conduct an

13 These chapters cover the following subjects: National Treatment and Market Access for Goods; Agriculture; Rules of
Origin; Origin Procedures; Textiles and Apparel; Customs Administration and Trade Facilitation; Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures; Technical Barriers to Trade; Government Procurement; Cross-border Trade in Services; and
Intellectual Property.
14 USMCA, supra note 10, art. 31.2.
15 Id. art. 19.5.1.
16 Id. art. 20.21.1.
17 The CUSFTA is a trade agreement negotiated between the United States and Canada that entered into force on
January 1, 1989. See generally Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement, Can.-U.S., Jan. 2, 1988, 102 Stat. 1851
[hereinafter CUSFTA]. It was subsequently suspended when NAFTA entered into force. See Villarreal & Fergusson,
supra note 2.
18 Graham Cook, The Legalization of the Non-violation Concept in the GATT/WTO System 10 (Oct. 24, 2018),
available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3272165.
19 Panel report, Puerto Rico – UHT Milk, USA-93-1807-01, ¶ 5.53 (1993).
Congressional Research Service
3

USMCA: Enforcing the Labor and Environment Provisions

equivalency study (i.e., decide whether Canadian production standards for UHT milk were
equivalent to U.S. standards) before excluding Canadian milk products from the market. The
United States did not perform such a study, and thereby nullified or impaired a benefit that
Canada could reasonably believe it would receive under CUSFTA.20
As is evident, there are a variety of ways in which a USMCA party may frame a dispute. In any
case, however, the contested conduct must be classifiable as within the scope of a provision
subject to the Chapter 31 dispute settlement process and characterized as a breach of a binding
obligation, conduct that nullifies or impairs a benefit owed to another USMCA party, or involves
the interpretation of a USMCA provision.
USMCA’s Chapter 31 Process
The Chapter 31 dispute settlement process is designed to encourage parties to resolve issues
cooperatively, while acknowledging that some cases may require formal dispute resolution
proceedings. Thus, before a party may trigger the most formal step—establishment of a panel—
that party must engage in discussions, known as consultations, with the responding party, and is
encouraged to use alternative dispute resolution methods (e.g., mediation) at any time during the
process.21 This section explains the Chapter 31 process in detail.
Figure 1. Chapter 31 Process

Source: Created by CRS using information from USMCA Chapter 31.
Consultations
The first step is for a USMCA party to submit a written request for consultations to another
party.22 This document must detail the reason for the request, describe the measure or conduct at

20 Id. ¶¶ 5.60–5.63.
21 USMCA, supra note 10, arts. 31.4–31.6.
22 Id. art. 31.4.1.
Congressional Research Service
4

USMCA: Enforcing the Labor and Environment Provisions

issue, and list the potential USMCA provisions involved.23 Consultations may occur by means
and in a location selected by the parties,24 and must begin within a specified time (unless the
parties agree on another timeline): within 15 days after the request for consultations is delivered
for disputes involving perishable goods or within 30 days for all other requests.25 A party that is
not involved in the dispute (i.e., a third party) may participate in the consultations if it “considers
it has a substantial interest in the matter.”26 To exercise this right, the third party must send a
written notice with an explanation of its “substantial interest” to the other parties.27
To illustrate this process, consider the first consultation requested under USMCA, sent on
December 9, 2020, in which the United States asked Canada to participate in consultations about
“measures of Canada through which Canada allocates its dairy tariff-rate quotas (TRQs).”28 The
request lists the specific TRQ notices at issue and states they “appear to be inconsistent” with
USMCA because they are not fairly or appropriately administered or create new conditions for
importers that apply for a share of the TRQ, among other things.29 Because the request involves
perishable goods, consultations should have begun by December 26, 2020. To date, there has not
been public confirmation as to when consultations began or how the parties intend to proceed.30
Establishing a Panel
If the parties do not reach an agreement during consultations, then the complaining party or
parties may request establishment of a panel. The request must identify any measure or other
matter at issue and a summary of the legal basis for the complaint.31 Such a request may not
generally be made until 30 days after delivery of the request for consultations if the matter
involves perishable goods or until 75 days after delivery for all other matters.32 For instance, as
the United States and Canada did not resolve the dairy TRQ dispute by consultations within 30
days after the United States requested consultations (i.e., January 8, 2021), the United States
could request a panel.
A party’s decision to request panel establishment has certain legal consequences. Foremost
among these is that such a request precludes the complaining party or parties from filing formal
claims under any other treaty or in any other forum, such as the World Trade Organization
(WTO).33 For example, if Canada requested a panel under USMCA in a dispute against Mexico, it

23 Id. art. 31.4.2.
24 Id. art. 31.4.7. If the parties disagree about the location, the meeting will occur in the capital city of the party whose
conduct is at issue. Id.
25 Id. art. 31.4.5.
26 Id. art. 31.4.4. Third-party participation may be more likely to occur if a statute, regulation, or other measure in
dispute, such as a country-of-origin labeling rule or licensing rule, affects a product or service traded among all
USMCA parties.
27 Id.
28 Request for Consultations by the United States (Dec. 9, 2020), https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/Press/Releases/
CdaDairyTRQConsultationsReq.pdf.
29 Id.
30 Canada has filed a separate request for consultations with the United States, alleging that safeguards on certain
crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells may violate the obligation to generally exclude these Canadian products from
safeguard actions. United States Solar Products Safeguard Consultations Request (Jan. 7, 2021), https://can-mex-usa-
sec.org/secretariat/pubs/consult/2020-12-22.aspx?lang=eng.
31 USMCA, supra note 10, art. 31.6.3.
32 Id. art. 31.6.1. The parties may agree to a different time period. Id.
33 Id. art. 31.3.2.
Congressional Research Service
5

USMCA: Enforcing the Labor and Environment Provisions

could not also begin dispute proceedings at the WTO or under the Comprehensive and
Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).34 Requesting a panel does not,
however, lock the parties into panel-driven resolution. At all times, the parties may pursue
alternative methods of dispute resolution (e.g., mediation) and may decide to suspend (for up to
one year) or terminate panel proceedings.35
Panel Selection
Once a panel is established, the parties must select a chair and the other panelists. As with many
FTAs, USMCA allows the disputing parties to choose, subject to some limitations, whom they
would like to serve in these positions. To facilitate the panel selection process, USMCA requires
the parties to create a standing roster of individuals eligible to serve as panelists,36 which the
USMCA parties released after the Agreement entered into force.37 This roster may play a
significant role in creating future panels, as parties should “normally” select panelists from the
roster.38 Moreover, the roster may resolve situations in which a disputing party refuses or fails to
participate in the panel selection process, as discussed below.39
Table 1. Summary of Chair and Panel Selection Process
Rule
Two Disputing Parties
Three Disputing Parties
Selection of the chair
By consensus within 15 days.
Same.
Consequence of failure to select a
If the parties cannot agree on a
Same, but the disputing party or
chair
chair, a disputing party wil be
parties chosen by lot must select
chosen by lot to select a chair
the chair within 10 days.
within 5 days.

The chair may not be a citizen of
the selecting party.
Special rule applicable to
If the responding party fails to
Same, except the chair cannot be a
responding party for failure to
participate in the drawing of lots,
citizen of either complaining party.
select a chair
the complaining party may select
the chair from the roster.

The chair may not be a citizen of
the complaining party.

34 The CPTPP is a trade agreement among Canada, Mexico, and nine other countries that developed out of the
negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) after the United States withdrew from the TPP. See Origins of the
CPTPP, N.Z. FOREIGN AFFS. & TRADE, https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/trade/free-trade-agreements/free-trade-
agreements-in-force/cptpp/cptpp-overview/.
35 USMCA, supra note 10, arts. 31.5.1, 31.5.4, 31.16.
36 Id. art. 31.8.1.
37 Decision No. 1 of the Free Trade Commission of the CUSMA, T-MEC, USMCA (“Agreement”), Annex IV (Roster
of Panelists for Chapter 31 Dispute Settlement Panels) (July 2, 2020) [hereinafter July 2, 2020 Decision]. Each party
may designate up to 10 individuals for a complete roster of 30. USMCA, supra note 10, art. 31.8.1.
38 USMCA, supra note 10, art. 31.9.3. Whether the panel chair should normally be selected from the roster is unclear,
as detailed below in the discussion on chair selection.
39 For subsequent appointments to the roster (i.e., to replace roster members or otherwise fill vacancies), the parties
must attempt to designate individuals by consensus. However, if they fail to agree one month after an individual is
proposed, the nominee will be added to the roster. Id. art. 31.8.1.
Congressional Research Service
6

USMCA: Enforcing the Labor and Environment Provisions

Rule
Two Disputing Parties
Three Disputing Parties
Selection of other panelists
Within 15 days of selection of the
Same, except the responding party
chair, each party selects 2
must, for panels of 5, select 2
individuals if a panel of 5, and 1 if a
individuals, 1 of whom is a citizen of
panel of 3.
the first complaining party and 1

who is a citizen of the other
complaining party. There is no
Panelists must be citizens of the
provision specifying which
other disputing party.
complaining party’s citizenship a
panelist must have if the panel has 3
members.
Consequence of failure to select
If a disputing party fails to select
Same.
panelists
panelists within the 15-day period,
then panelists wil be selected by lot
and must be citizens of the other
disputing party.
Special rule applicable to
If the responding party fails to
Same, except, for panels of 5, 1
responding party for failure to
participate in the selection by lot
panelist must be a citizen of 1
select panelists
procedure, then the complaining
complaining party and the second a
party may select the panelists, who
citizen of the other complaining
must be citizens of the complaining
party. There is no provision
party.
describing which complaining
party’s citizenship a panelist must
have if the panel has 3 members.
Source: Created by CRS using information from USMCA Article 31.9.
Selection of the Chair
Disputing parties must attempt to select a chair for a panel within 15 days of delivery of a request
for establishment of a panel. If there is no agreement, then a disputing party “chosen by lot shall
select” a chair within 5 days.40 The chair may not be a citizen of the selecting party.41
This provision is substantially the same as its NAFTA predecessor,42 and provides little detail
about the process. This lack of detail may reflect a preference for allowing the parties maximum
latitude in selecting a chair, but it also generates several procedural ambiguities. For example,
although the rules stipulate that a disputing party chosen by lot to select a chair may not choose
one of its own citizens, the consequence of this limitation is unclear. One interpretation is that the
chair must be a citizen of another USMCA party, and another is that the chair may be a citizen of
any country. The NAFTA Secretariat’s description of the chair selection process adopted the latter
of these interpretations.43 By replicating much of the NAFTA selection process, the parties may
have intended to adopt this interpretation. However, if the parties would prefer to require that the
chair be a citizen of a USMCA country, they could amend the Rules of Procedure or even the
Agreement’s text.

40 Id. arts. 31.9.1(b), 31.9.2(b).
41 Id.
42 NAFTA, supra note 1, arts. 2011(1)(b), 2011(2)(b).
43 “Overview of the Dispute Settlement Provisions,” NAFTA SECRETARIAT, https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/
Dispute-Settlement/Overview-of-the-Dispute-Settlement-Provisions#chap20 (“The chair of the panel is selected by the
disputing Parties and may be a citizen of a NAFTA Party or any other country.”).
Congressional Research Service
7

link to page 11 link to page 9 USMCA: Enforcing the Labor and Environment Provisions

Selection of the Panelists
Panels generally consist of five individuals, including the chair, but the parties may agree on
panels of three.44 This is the first U.S. FTA to expressly limit the panel size to two choices.
NAFTA and its U.S.-Canada predecessor provided only for panels of five. Other FTAs have
limited panels to three members or indicated that panels shall have three members unless the
disputing parties agree to panels of unspecified sizes, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Dispute Settlement Panels in U.S. FTAs
Discretion on Panel
FTA
Panel Size
Article
Size?
Australia
3
21.7
Yes
Bahrain
3
19.7
Yes
CAFTA-DR
3
20.9
No
Chile
3
22.9
No
Colombia
3
21.9
No
Canada (CUSFTA)
5
1807
No
Israel
3
19.1
No
Jordan
n/a
n/a
n/a
Korea
3
22.9
Yes
Morocco
3
20.7
Yes
NAFTA
5
2011
No
Oman
3
20.7
Yes
Panama
3
20.9
No
Peru
3
21.9
No
Singapore
3
20.4
Yes
USMCA
3 or 5
31.9
Yes, but 3 or 5 only
Source: Created by CRS with information from U.S. free trade agreements.
Due to the shift away from NAFTA’s five-member panel requirement, USMCA has created rules
to address potential issues that may arise when appointing five- and three-member panels. As
noted in Table 1, the disputing parties may generally select panelists subject to certain citizenship
requirements within 15 days after the chair is selected.45 These panelists should “normally” come
from the roster, although the parties may select from outside the roster. To encourage parties to

44 USMCA, supra note 10, arts. 31.9.1(a), 31.9.2(a). If the parties cannot agree on a panel size, the panel will consist of
five members. July 2, 2020 Decision, supra note 37, Annex III (Rules of Procedure for Chapter 31 (Dispute
Settlement)), art. 16.
45 USMCA, supra note 10, arts. 31.9.1(d), 31.9.2(d).
Congressional Research Service
8

USMCA: Enforcing the Labor and Environment Provisions

select from roster members, a party may reject a nonrostered individual without giving a reason.46
By contrast, a party cannot reject a rostered individual without giving a reason.47
In addition, USMCA has rules for when the parties fail to agree on panelists. Should a disputing
party fail to select panelists within the 15-day timeline, that party’s panelists will be selected by
lot from the roster of individuals who are citizens of the other disputing party.48 A special rule
also applies for when a responding party fails to participate in the selection by lot for panelists.
The complaining party or parties may select one or two panelists, as relevant, from the roster of
citizens of the complaining party or parties.49 In disputes involving two complaining parties and
one responding party, there is some uncertainty as to how these provisions apply to three-member
panels, as the rule stipulates that the selected panelist must be a citizen of the complaining parties,
but does not indicate which of the two complainants will have a citizen on the panel. The
complaining parties may be able to resolve the issue between them, but future dispute
proceedings may lead the USMCA parties to revisit this and consider creating a more specific
rule for such cases. For example, if the complaining parties cannot agree on a panelist, the
Secretariat could randomly select a panelist from the rosters of citizens of those parties.
Aside from rules that govern disagreements about appointing panelists, USMCA also attempts to
address situations in which one or more parties do not designate individuals to the roster, stating
that such failure may not prevent another party from requesting establishment of a panel.50 This
provision seeks to prohibit a party from disrupting the dispute settlement process by blocking the
formation of a panel.51 Although USMCA does not clarify how the disputing parties may
constitute panels in the absence of a full roster, the USMCA Free Trade Commission has created
Rules of Procedure to address this situation.52 If a party fails to create a full roster, each disputing
party must propose panelists (but not the chair of the panel): for five-member panels, a party must
propose four candidates, at least two of whom cannot be citizens of that country; for three-
member panels, a party must propose two candidates, at least one of whom cannot be a citizen of
that country.53 Once these candidates have been proposed, each disputing party may then select
from the other party’s nominations, but must select individuals who are citizens of the other
country.54 If a disputing party fails to propose individuals for the panel, then the other party’s

46 This opportunity to reject another party’s proposed panelist is subject to two limitations. The rejection must be filed
within 15 days of a party proposing an individual and cannot be made if no one on the roster possesses the requisite
expertise and qualifications to serve as a panelist for the dispute. Id. art. 31.9.3.
47 The party seeking to reject a proposed panelist may only “raise concerns that” an individual does not meet the
requirements of USMCA Article 31.8.2. Id.; see also id. art. 31.9.3 nn. 44, 47, 49.
48 Id. art. 31.9.1(e).
49 Id. arts. 31.9.1(f), 31.9.2(f).
50 Id. art. 31.8.1.
51 Experience with NAFTA’s general state-to-state enforcement system (Chapter 20), which applied to most of the
parties’ treaty obligations (although not the environment or labor obligations), highlighted this potential issue with
NAFTA. Specifically, in 2000, the United States successfully blocked formation of a panel; following this, no NAFTA
panel was formed. Simon Lester, Inu Manak, & Andrej Arpas, Access to Trade Justice: Fixing NAFTA’s Flawed State-
to-State Dispute Settlement Process, 18(1) WORLD TRADE REV. 63, 66–68 (2019).
52 USMCA, supra note 10, art. 31.8.1. The Commission is a body composed of ministers, or officials of equal status,
that performs a number of administrative and substantive duties to monitor the implementation and functioning of
USMCA. USMCA, supra note 10, art. 30.
53 July 2, 2020 Decision, supra note 37, Annex III (Rules of Procedure), art. 17(d). This rule assumes that the chair has
been agreed to by the parties or otherwise selected in accordance with USMCA rules, and thus only four or two panel
slots, for five- or three-member panels, respectively, remain to be filled.
54 Id. art. 17(f). This provision functions differently based on the number of vacancies. For example, if a five-member
panel has two vacancies, each party may select one panelist from the proposed slates. This means if the United States
Congressional Research Service
9

USMCA: Enforcing the Labor and Environment Provisions

proposed slate serves as the panel.55 However, if a disputing party submits names but then refuses
to participate in selecting panelists, the panel will be selected by lot from the candidates who are
citizens of the other party.56 If a disputing party refuses to participate in the “selected by lot”
process, then the other disputing party may choose two panelists of its own citizenship for five-
member panels and one panelist of its own citizenship for three-member panels.57
These rules may be difficult to apply in some circumstances. For instance, if there are three
vacancies for a five-member panel in a dispute between Canada and Mexico and Canada refuses
to participate in panelist selection, then the rules require the panel be selected by lot from the
proposed panelists of Mexican citizenship. However, under these rules, Mexico may propose only
a maximum of two Mexican citizens in its slate of four proposed panelists. It is unclear if Mexico
may then submit an additional panelist for consideration or if another process should apply.
NAFTA and CUSFTA provide little guidance for how the parties might address these issues, as
these agreements allowed only five-member panels.58 If problems arise in future disputes, the
parties may seek to address them in the Rules of Procedure.
Eligibility to Serve as a Panelist
Anyone a party may select for the panel must meet certain eligibility criteria. All panelists must
“have expertise or experience in international law, international trade, other matters covered by
this Agreement, or the resolution of disputes arising under international trade agreements.”59 For
disputes involving labor or environmental issues, “panelists other than the chair” must have
expertise or experience in labor or environmental law or practice, as relevant.60 Additionally, for
any dispute involving “specialized areas of law . . . , the disputing Parties should select panelists
to ensure that the necessary expertise is available on the panel.”61 USMCA also imposes
limitations on the conduct and affiliations of proposed roster and panel members. Members must
“be independent of, and not be affiliated with or take instructions from, a Party,” and must adhere
to the Code of Conduct created by the USMCA Free Trade Commission.62 In addition, an
individual may not serve as a panelist for a specific dispute if he or she participated in
consultations or other attempts to resolve the dispute.63 Finally, the selection of individuals must
be “on the basis of objectivity, reliability, and sound judgment.”64

proposes four persons, two of whom are not U.S. citizens and two who are, the other party—say, Canada—may select
between only two of those four candidates. By contrast, if a five-member panel has four vacancies, then Canada must
accept both of the U.S.-proposed panelists who are not U.S. citizens.
55 Id. art. 17(e).
56 Id. art. 17(g).
57 Id. art. 17(h). The Rules of Procedure have a similar process for selection of the panel chair if the parties seek to
select the chair from the roster. Id. art. 17(a)–(c).
58 See NAFTA, supra note 1, art. 2011; CUSFTA, supra note 17, art. 1807.3.
59 USMCA, supra note 10, art. 31.8.2(a).
60 Id. art. 31.8.3.
61 Id. art. 31.8.4.
62 Id. arts. 31.8.2(c)–(d); July 2, 2020 Decision, supra note 37, Annex III (Code of Conduct).
63 USMCA art. 31.8.5.
64 Id. art. 31.8.2(b).
Congressional Research Service
10

USMCA: Enforcing the Labor and Environment Provisions

The Panel Process
Once panel selection is complete and the panel receives the terms of reference from the parties, a
panel may commence its process for writing a report.65 During the process, a panel may receive
written and oral submissions, and the disputing parties may request a hearing.66 If a hearing
occurs, the public may normally attend unless the parties decide otherwise,67 and any USMCA
party that is not a disputing party may attend hearings and receive written submissions.68 A panel
must create an initial report and present it to the parties generally within 150 days of the last
panelist’s appointment.69 Once the parties receive this report, they may submit comments to the
panel.70 The panel must then prepare a final report within 30 days, unless the disputing parties
agree otherwise.71 During this time, a panel may request additional views, reconsider its initial
report, or undertake any “further examination that it considers appropriate.”72 Within 15 days of
receiving the final report, the parties must review it, take steps to protect confidential information,
and release it to the public.73
Resolving a Dispute After Issuance of a Final Panel Report
A final panel report may determine that a responding party’s measure or conduct is inconsistent
with USMCA or nullifies or impairs a benefit that the complaining party or parties expected to
receive. In that case, the disputing parties must seek to resolve the issue within 45 days of
receiving the report.74 They may construct the terms of resolution even if a panel report contains
recommendations about how to resolve the dispute, as the panel reports are not legally binding.75
Although panel reports are not binding, responding parties may face consequences for failing to
resolve a dispute. If the parties fail to reach a resolution within 45 days, then the complaining
party or parties may suspend benefits to the responding party, but only to a degree “equivalent” to
the injury suffered by the complaining party or parties. Generally, the suspended benefit should
be in the same sector as the measure or subject of the dispute, but may be in a different sector
when a suspension in the same sector would not be effective or practicable.76

65 Id. art. 31.13.5.
66 Id. arts. 31.11, 31.14, 31.15. For more details, see July 2, 2020 Decision, supra note 37, Annex III (Rules of
Procedure for Chapter 31 (Dispute Settlement)), art. 23. See also USMCA, supra note 10, art. 31.11(e).
67 USMCA, supra note 10, art. 31.11(b). The public may also access all written submissions, written versions of oral
statements, and written responses to requests or questions from the panel, except information redacted or protected as
confidential. Id. art. 31.11(d).
68 A nondisputing party must submit written notice of its intent to exercise this right within 10 days after delivery of the
request to establish a panel. Id. art. 31.14.
69 Id. arts. 31.13(6), 31.17.1. “In cases of urgency related to perishable goods, the panel shall endeavour to present” the
draft within 120 days. Id. Further, if a panel needs more time, it may inform the parties in writing of the reason for the
delay and include the date it intends to release the report. An extension may not exceed 30 days unless the disputing
parties agree otherwise. Id. art. 31.17.2.
70 Id. art. 31.17.3.
71 Id. art. 31.17.5.
72 Id. arts. 31.17.4-31.17.5.
73 Id. art. 31.17.6.
74 Id. art. 31.18.1.
75 A resolution may include eliminating a USMCA-inconsistent measure, providing compensation, or agreeing to any
other appropriate remedy. Id. art. 31.18.2. Compare this to reports issued by binational panels hearing challenges to
antidumping or countervailing duty (AD/CVD) determinations, which are binding on the parties. Id. art. 10.12.9.
76 USMCA, supra note 10, art. 31.19.
Congressional Research Service
11

USMCA: Enforcing the Labor and Environment Provisions

A responding party may challenge the suspension of benefits in two circumstances: (1) if it
believes the level of suspension is “manifestly excessive”; or (2) if it believes that it has
eliminated the disputed measure.77 In such a case, the responding party may request the panel that
heard the merits of the dispute reconvene to reconsider the challenge.78 A panel must “reconvene
as soon as possible after the date of delivery of the request” and issue a determination within 90
days if it is considering one of the two circumstances above, or within 120 days if considering
whether both circumstances exist.79 Should the panel determine the suspension of benefits is
manifestly excessive, it must provide its views as to an appropriate level.80 If a panel finds the
responding party has not eliminated the measure or conduct in dispute, the complaining party or
parties may then suspend benefits but only up to the level determined by the panel.81
Enforcement of Labor Provisions
USMCA establishes several mechanisms that parties may use to address issues involving the
Labor Chapter (Chapter 23). This section discusses the formal and informal ways in which parties
may try to enforce this Chapter.82 As of this writing, no USMCA party has initiated a dispute
against another party to enforce labor provisions. However, a number of Mexican migrant
workers lodged a complaint with Mexico, alleging that the United States violated a number of
Chapter 23 obligations.
Labor Disputes Under Chapter 31
USMCA countries may rely on the general state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism in Chapter
31 to resolve matters involving the Labor Chapter. However, the party or parties seeking to bring
a claim under the Labor Chapter must complete the consultation process set out in USMCA
Article 23.17, rather than the consultation process in Chapter 31, before requesting a Chapter 31
panel. The request and process for consultations in Article 23.17 largely track the Chapter 31
consultation provisions.83 However, if initial consultations fail to resolve the issue, a party may
not immediately request establishment of a panel. Instead, a party must request ministerial
consultations. During these consultations, the parties’ relevant ministers or their designees must
attempt to address the relevant issues.84 Only after these two rounds of consultations may a party
request a Chapter 31 panel.85 Once such a request is made, the Chapter 31 provisions govern the
dispute.
This approach generally adopts the design for enforcing labor obligations in FTAs completed (or
amended) after the May 10th Agreement, which departed from the approach taken in NAFTA’s
Labor Side Agreement. The NAFTA Labor Side Agreement, in a never-used provision, permitted

77 Id. art. 31.19.3.
78 Id.
79 Id. If the original panelists are not available, the parties may select new panelists. See July 2, 2020 Decision, supra
note 37, Annex III (Rules of Procedure for Chapter 31 (Dispute Settlement)), art. 25.
80 USMCA, supra note 10, art. 31.19.3.
81 Id. art. 31.19.4.
82 For more information on USMCA’s labor provisions, see CRS In Focus IF11308, USMCA: Labor Provisions, by M.
Angeles Villarreal and Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs.
83 USMCA, supra note 10, art. 23.17.
84 Id. art. 23.17.6.
85 Id. arts. 23.17.8, 23.17.12.
Congressional Research Service
12

USMCA: Enforcing the Labor and Environment Provisions

the parties to request panels to hear disputes involving “a persistent pattern of failure” by a
country to “effectively enforce” occupational safety and health, child labor, or minimum wage
technical labor standards.86 By contrast, the USMCA dispute mechanism covers all of the labor
obligations, and not just one type of claim. Further, USMCA’s “failure to enforce” provision is
broader in scope, reaching all labor laws,87 and also addresses a challenge to bringing “failure to
enforce” claims that arose in FTAs.88 These later FTAs required the complaining party in “failure
to enforce” claims to prove that the failure to enforce a labor law was done “in a manner affecting
trade or investment between the Parties.”89 USMCA imposes the same requirement, but it
includes a rebuttable presumption that such a failure to enforce does so in a manner affecting
trade or investment between the parties.90 This inclusion means that the complaining party need
not provide evidence of this in its initial claim but must do so subsequently if the responding
party provides sufficient evidence to suggest that its failure to enforce does not affect trade or
investment.
Although Chapter 31 has yet to be used for labor disputes, there is one potential complaint that
may lead to its use. On March 23, 2021, a group of female migrant workers filed a complaint with
Mexico, alleging that the United States has violated several USMCA obligations.91 Specifically,
the complaint alleges violations of Article 23.3 (elimination of discrimination in respect of
employment) and Article 23.8 (ensuring migrant workers are protected under labor laws) by
allowing sex-based discrimination in recruitment and hiring practices of migrant workers, and
thereby also failing to enforce U.S. labor laws.92 If the Ministry of Labor in Mexico decides to
proceed with the complaint and raise the issue with the United States, the complaint might serve
as a basis for future Chapter 31 proceedings.
Cooperative Labor Dialogue
In addition to the Chapter 31 dispute settlement process, a USMCA party may use the cooperative
labor dialogue procedure established in USMCA Article 23.13 to address issues involving the
Labor Chapter. This dialogue may serve as a more informal alternative to the Chapter 31 dispute
settlement process, although a party may pursue a dialogue in conjunction with the labor
consultations discussed above.93
In many ways, the cooperative dialogue procedure is much like that for consultations. The
country requesting a dialogue must submit a written request to the receiving party.94 Furthermore,
any request should begin “within 30 days of a party’s receipt of a request for dialogue” and may

86 NAALC, supra note 1, art. 27.1.
87 USMCA, supra note 10, art. 23.5.1.
88 See Panel report, In the Matter of Guatemala – Issues Relating to the Obligations under Article 16.2.1(a) of the
CAFTA-DR (June 14, 2017) (addressing, among other issues, whether the alleged failures to enforce labor laws were
done “in a manner affecting trade between the parties” – i.e., whether the failure to enforce conferred a competitive
advantage in trade).
89 See, e.g., KORUS, supra note 6, art. 19.3.1(a); U.S.-Peru TPA, supra note 6, art. 17.3.1(a).
90 USMCA art. 23.5.1 n.12.
91 Mexican Migrant Women File First USMCA Labor Complaint against U.S., INSIDE TRADE (Mar. 24, 2021),
https://insidetrade.com/daily-news/mexican-migrant-women-file-first-usmca-labor-complaint-against-us.
92 Id.
93 USMCA, supra note 10, art. 23.17.13.
94 Id. arts. 23.13.1-23.13.2.
Congressional Research Service
13

USMCA: Enforcing the Labor and Environment Provisions

be held in person or by other means.95 A third party does not have a right to participate in the
dialogue as it would in consultations, but the parties involved in the dialogue must permit
“interested persons,” which could include a third party, to submit their views on the matter.96
The cooperative labor dialogue differs more from consultations with respect to resolution of a
matter. Consulting parties need not record or publish the outcome of their consultations, even
when they resolve the issue in dispute during consultations. By contrast, the parties engaging in a
cooperative labor dialogue must publish the outcome, including the time frame and steps for
implementing the mutually accepted resolution, unless all parties disapprove such publication.97
Facility-Specific, Rapid Response Labor Mechanism
USMCA includes two facility-specific, rapid response labor mechanisms to resolve claims
involving a “Denial of Rights,” defined as the right of free association and collective bargaining,
at “Covered Facilities” (defined below).98 These rapid response mechanisms apply only to
potential disputes between the United States and Mexico (USMCA Annex 31-A) and between
Canada and Mexico (USMCA Annex 31-B), with provisions that appear identical except for
changes in the footnotes to identify and address each country’s relevant domestic laws and
processes. In mid-May 2021, the AFL-CIO filed a petition against several facilities in Mexico
with the U.S. Department of Labor, and the United States raised concerns about labor practices at
automotive facilities in Mexico, marking the first uses of the rapid response mechanism.99
Denial of Rights claims involve enforcement by the USMCA parties, but address situations in
which individual entities within a country allegedly infringe workers’ rights, as opposed to the
Chapter 31 and cooperative labor dialogue mechanisms, which address governmental failures to
uphold USMCA obligations. These claims do not include all potential infringements of the right
of free association or collective bargaining. Rather, such claims may arise from only the
following three situations:
 for the United States, “Denial of Rights owed to workers at a covered facility
under an enforced order of the National Labor Relations Board”;100
 for Mexico, “Denial of Rights owed to workers under legislation that complies
with Annex 23-A” of USMCA;101 and
 for Canada, “Denial of Rights owed to workers at a covered facility under an
enforced order of the Canada Industrial Relations Board.”102

95 Id. arts. 23.13.3-23.13.4.
96 Id. art. 23.13.3.
97 Id. art. 23.13.5.
98 Id. arts. 31-A.1-2, 31-B.1-2.
99 Thomas Kaplan, Complaint Accuses Mexican Factories of Labor Abuses, Testing New Trade Pact, N.Y. TIMES (May
10, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/10/business/economy/mexico-trade-deal-labor-complaint.html; David
Lawder, Daina Solomon, and David Shepardson, U.S. and Mexico Target GM Labor ‘Violations,’ Testing New Trade
Deal, Reuters (May 12, 2021), https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/us-asks-mexico-review-gm-
plant-labor-allegations-test-new-trade-deal-2021-05-12/.
100 The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is an independent agency of the U.S. Government that may, among
other things, issue orders to prevent any person from engaging in an unfair labor practice, including interference with
the right to collective bargaining. 29 U.S.C. § 153 et seq.
101 Annex 23-A requires Mexico to adopt several laws to protect the right to collective bargaining and union activity,
and to establish independent entities and Labor Courts for resolving labor disputes.
102 USMCA, supra note 10, arts. 31-A.2 n.2, 31-B.2 n.5. The Canada Industrial Relations Board is a federal entity
Congressional Research Service
14

USMCA: Enforcing the Labor and Environment Provisions

Furthermore, the entities within the scope of this mechanism (i.e., the “Covered Facilities”)
include only facilities “in the territory of a Party” that meet the following criteria:
 the facility involves a “priority sector,” defined as “a sector that produces
manufactured goods, supplies services, or involves mining”;103 and
 the facility produces goods or supplies services traded between the parties or that
compete in the territory of the other party.104
Table 3. Rapid Response Mechanism Claims
Requirements to File a Claim
Criterion
Definition
Denial of Rights
The covered facility must have infringed the right to
free association or col ective bargaining.
Covered Facility
The facility must involve involves a “priority sector,”
defined as “a sector that produces manufactured
goods, supplies services, or involves mining”
and
The facility must produce goods or services traded
between the parties or compete in the territory of
the other party.
Country-Specific Limitations
United States: The covered facility must be subject to
an order involving a denial of rights imposed by the
National Labor Relations Board.
Canada: The covered facility must be subject to an
order imposed involving a denial of rights by the
Canada Industrial Relations Board.
Mexico: The covered facility must be subject to the
legislation, in Annex 23-A, that Mexico must adopt to
protect the right to col ective bargaining and union
activity.
Source: Created by CRS using information from USMCA Articles 31-A.2, 31-A.15, 31-B.2, 31-B.15.
In some respects, the rapid response mechanism mirrors the Chapter 31 process. A party must
engage in collaborative efforts to resolve the dispute before requesting establishment of a panel
and potentially imposing remedies (e.g., higher tariffs). The rapid response mechanism also
differs from the Chapter 31 process in some significant respects, as described below.
State Requests for Review and Remediation
If a USMCA party has a “good faith basis” to believe that a facility is infringing workers’ right of
free association or collective bargaining, it may request that the government of the country in

created to enforce the Canada Labour Code, which applies to employees and employers connected to the federal
government, by investigating and issuing orders to protect the right to collective bargaining and prevent other unfair
labor practices. Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2.
103 Although USMCA currently limits priority sectors to those listed, the Agreement imposes an obligation on the
parties to review such sectors to determine whether to add other sectors to the list. USMCA, supra note 10, arts. 31-
A.13, 31-B.13. Thus, the types of issues that a country may raise with another country within this mechanism may
expand over time.
104 Id. arts. 31-A.15, 31-B.15.
Congressional Research Service
15

USMCA: Enforcing the Labor and Environment Provisions

which that facility is located review the situation.105 The country receiving a request may decide
whether to conduct the review and must notify the requesting party of its decision within 10
days.106 If the country declines to conduct a review, the complainant “may request the formation
of a Rapid Response Labor Panel.”107 Should the country agree to conduct a review, it must
submit a written report within 45 days.108
Any next steps turn on the report’s findings. If the report finds no Denial of Rights, then the
complainant may agree or submit a written notice of its disagreement and request the formation
of a panel.109 By contrast, if the report finds a Denial of Rights, the parties must consult for at
least 10 days to resolve the issue.110 If the parties do not reach an agreement, the complaining
party may request formation of a panel.111 If the parties reach an agreement, that agreement must
include a time for the respondent party to correct the Denial of Rights. This provision acts to
encourage prompt remediation while preserving the complainant’s ability to take further action if
the situation is not resolved. Once the time for the respondent to take remedial measures expires,
and if the parties disagree as to whether the Denial of Rights has been remedied, then the
complainant may give notice to the respondent of its intent to impose remedies.112 These remedies
may include the suspension of preferential tariff treatment for or imposition of penalties on goods
manufactured at or services supplied by the relevant facility.113 A respondent may contest any
remedies imposed by the complainant by requesting that a panel assess whether a Denial of
Rights persists.114
Establishing and Selecting a Panel
To establish a panel, a party must submit a petition with its request. It may ask the panel to
conduct one of two inquiries:
1. “[V]erify the Covered Facility’s compliance with the law in question and
determine whether there has been a Denial of Rights”; or
2. “[D]etermine whether there has been a Denial of Rights.”115

105 Id. arts. 31-A.4.2, 31-B.4.2. Before submitting a request, a party may decide whether to invoke the mechanism
through its domestic process. Id. arts. 31-A.4.1 n.3, 31-B.4.1 n.6. The United States has proposed a process for
reviewing all petitions alleging a Denial of Rights, through which the Interagency Labor Committee assesses whether
there is a good faith basis to request a review and then makes a recommendation to the U.S. Trade Representative.
Interagency Labor Committee for Monitoring and Enforcement Procedural Guidelines for Petitions Pursuant to the
USMCA, 85 Fed. Reg. 39,257 (June 30, 2020).
106 USMCA, supra note 10, arts. 31-A.4.2, 31-B.4.2.
107 Id.
108 Id. arts. 31-A.4.4, 31-B.4.4.
109 Id. arts. 31-A.4.5, 31-B.4.5.
110 Id. arts. 31-A.4.6, 31-B.4.6.
111 Id. arts. 31-A.4.9, 31-B.4.9. Panel formation is discussed further below.
112 Id. arts. 31-A.4.7-8, 31-B.4.7-8.
113 Id. arts. 31-A.10.2, 31-B.10.2.
114 Id. arts. 31-A.4.8, 31-B.4.8.
115 Id. arts. 31-A.5.1, 31-B.5.1.
Congressional Research Service
16

USMCA: Enforcing the Labor and Environment Provisions

Once the USMCA Secretariat receives a request for a panel,116 it must transmit the request to the
other party and then select a panel within three business days of the request’s date.117
Creating Lists of Eligible Panelists
Much like the Chapter 31 panel procedure, the rapid response mechanism calls for the parties to
create lists of individuals eligible to serve as panelists. However, the rapid response mechanism
specifies that the parties create three lists: one list per party of nationals of the parties, and one
joint list of individuals who are not nationals of either party.118 The U.S.-Mexico mechanism, for
example, requires Mexico to appoint its nationals to one list, the United States to appoint its
nationals to another list, and both parties to create jointly a list of individuals who do not share
either’s nationality. The parties released their lists of panelists on July 2, 2020.119
Should a party fail to “designate its individuals, the Parties may still request establishment of
panels.”120 The Rules of Procedure provide procedures to address these situations. First, if there is
no joint list but the parties have submitted their individual lists, each party may propose two
candidates who are not nationals of either disputing party to serve as chair. The Secretariat will
select a chair from among the names submitted by lot and select the other panelists by lot from
the individual lists.121 Second, if the party requesting a panel has failed to submit names for its
individual list, it must propose three candidates at the time it requests a panel or no panel may be
established.122 Third, if the nonrequesting party has not completed its individual list, then it must
submit three candidates, from which the Secretariat may select one. Should that party fail to
submit candidates, the other party may propose candidates for consideration.123
Qualifications for Panelists
The qualifications for panelists mirror those in Chapter 31 except for the expertise criterion.
Chapter 31 panelists generally must have “expertise or experience in international law,
international trade, other matters covered by this Agreement, or the resolution of disputes arising
under international trade agreements.”124 Those panelists who hear disputes involving the Labor
Chapter (Chapter 23) must also have “expertise or experience in labor law or practice.”125 The
rapid response mechanism builds further on these requirements and specifies that its panelists
must possess “expertise or experience in labor law and practice, and with the application of
standards and rights as recognized by the International Labor Organization.”126

116 The Secretariat is an entity organized by the USMCA Free Trade Commission to assist the Commission and provide
administrative support for panels and other committees established in the Agreement. Id. art. 30.6.
117 Id. arts. 31-A.5.2-3, 31-B.5.2-3.
118 Id. arts. 31-A.3, 31-B.3.
119 July 2, 2020 Decision, supra note 37, Annex V (United States-Mexico Lists of Rapid Response Labor Panelists),
Annex VI (Canada-Mexico Lists of Rapid Response Labor Panelists).
120 USMCA, supra note 10, art. 31A-3.2.
121 July 2, 2020 Decision, supra note 37, Annex III (Rules of Procedure), arts. 26.10(a)(i), (c), 27.10(a)(i).
122 Id. arts. 26.10(a)(ii), 27.10(a)(ii).
123 Id. arts. 26.10(iii), 27.10(iii).
124 USMCA, supra note 10, art. 31.8.2(a).
125 Id. art. 31.8.3(a).
126 Id. art. 31-A.3.4(a), 31-B.3.4(a).
Congressional Research Service
17

USMCA: Enforcing the Labor and Environment Provisions

Selecting the Panel
The Secretariat selects the panel’s members, with one member drawn by lot from each list, and
the member from the joint list to serve as chair of the panel.127 If any of the lists are incomplete,
then the Secretariat may select the chair or panelists by lot according to the Rules of Procedure
described above.
The Panel Process
Confirmation of Petition
After the Secretariat selects the panelists, it must send the petition for a panel determination to the
panelists. The panel must convene within five business days to “confirm the petition,” or, in other
words, to ascertain whether the petition meets the criteria for consideration. Specifically, the
panel must ensure that the petition (1) identifies a “Covered Facility”; (2) identifies the domestic
laws “relevant to the alleged Denial of Rights”; and (3) “states the basis for the complainant
Party’s good faith belief that there is a Denial of Rights.”128 If the petition lacks some or all of
this information, it is unclear how a panel may proceed, but USMCA permits panels to adopt
procedures to address procedural questions not addressed elsewhere.129
If the party requesting a panel has asked for a Denial of Rights determination and verification,
then the panel must send a request for verification to the respondent party, as explained below. If
the party requested a panel determination only of whether a Denial of Rights occurred, the panel
may proceed to that determination, also described below.
Verification of a Denial of Rights
If a party requests that a panel verify a covered facility’s compliance with a labor law, then after a
panel confirms a petition, the panel must “issue a request for verification to the respondent
Party.”130 This request must be tailored to address the “circumstances and the nature of the
allegations” in the petition and “any other submissions from the Parties.”131 The respondent party
must reply to the verification request within seven business days as to whether it consents to a
verification.132 Failure to respond on time is deemed equivalent to a refusal, and permits the
complaining party to request that the panel decide whether a Denial of Rights occurred even
without a verification.133 For cases in which a respondent party conducted an initial review of
whether a Denial of Rights occurred, a panel must also request that the respondent party submit a
document, within 10 business days, with details of any investigation or action taken against the
facility at issue.134 The complainant party may submit a response to such document.135

127 Id. art. 31-A.5.3, 31-B.5.3. July 2, 2020 Decision, supra note 37, Annex III (Rules of Procedure), arts. 26.6, 27.6.
128 USMCA, supra note 10, arts. 31-A.6, 31-B.6.
129 July 2, 2020 Decision, supra note 37, Annex III (Rules of Procedure), art. 9.4.
130 USMCA, supra note 10, arts. 31-A.7.1, 31-B.7.1.
131 Id.
132 Id. arts. 31-A.7.6, 31-B.7.6.
133 Id. arts. 31-A.7.6, 31-A.7.9, 31-B.7.9.
134 Id. arts. 31-A.7.2-4, 31-B.7.2-4.
135 Id.
Congressional Research Service
18

USMCA: Enforcing the Labor and Environment Provisions

If a respondent party consents to a verification request, then the panel “shall conduct the
verification within 30 days after receipt of the request by the respondent Party.”136 The agreement
does not detail the content or steps taken as part of a verification, although it suggests that an on-
site verification may occur in some cases.137 If an on-site verification occurs, observers from both
parties may accompany the panel.138 USMCA’s general lack of detail may reflect a sensitivity to
the fact that the circumstances of each case may differ and therefore require different steps be
taken as part of a verification. The Agreement’s instruction that a request for verification be
“appropriate” for the “circumstances and the nature of the allegations” suggests just such an
awareness.139 Thus, it gives panels broad discretion to determine what constitutes a “verification,”
although they must explain what actions they intend to take as part of a verification.140
If a respondent party’s conduct causes “interference with the verification or the panel is otherwise
unable to conduct the verification in a manner that it believes is most appropriate . . . the panel
may take the Party’s conduct into account” in determining whether a Denial of Rights has
occurred.141 The level or type of conduct that may constitute “interference” is undefined, and
whether conduct qualifies as interference likely depends on the steps that a panel decides to take
to verify a facility’s compliance with the relevant law.
A panel must determine whether a Denial of Rights occurred within 30 days of a verification or, if
one did not occur, within 30 days after constitution of the panel.142 A determination must address
the severity of any such Denial of Rights and identify, when possible, the responsible person or
persons. It may also include recommendations for how to resolve the issue, but only if the parties
request such recommendations.143 During this process, the panel must permit the parties “an
opportunity to be heard.”144
Resolving a Dispute After a Panel Determination
If a panel finds that a Denial of Rights exists, the complainant may impose remedies after
“providing written notice to the respondent Party at least 5 business days in advance.”145 There is
no rehearing or appeal process to challenge a Denial of Rights finding. Remedies may include the
imposition of higher tariffs on goods manufactured at the covered facility where the Denial of
Rights exists, or the imposition of penalties on goods manufactured at or services provided by the
covered facility.146 Additionally, if a covered facility “owned or controlled by the same person
producing the same or related goods or providing the same or related services has received” at

136 Id. arts. 31-A.7.7, 31-B.7.7.
137 Id.
138 Id.
139 Id. arts. 31-A.7.1, 31-B.7.1.
140 July 2, 2020 Decision, supra note 37, Annex III (Rules of Procedure), arts. 26.11, 27.11.
141 USMCA, supra note 10, arts. 31-A.7.8, 31-B.7.8.
142 Id. arts. 31-A.8.1, 31-B.8.2.
143 Id. arts. 31-A.8.4, 31-B.8.4.
144 Id. arts. 31-A-8.2, 31-B.8.2. According to the Rules of Procedure, the parties may request a hearing and make
written submissions to the panel. July 2, 2020 Decision, supra note 37, Annex III (Rules of Procedure), arts. 26.13,
27.13.
145 USMCA, supra note 10, arts. 31-A.9, 31-B.9.
146 Id. arts. 31-A.10.2, 31-B.10.2.
Congressional Research Service
19

USMCA: Enforcing the Labor and Environment Provisions

least two prior adverse Denial of Rights determinations, then a complainant may also consider
whether to deny entry of the goods manufactured at that facility.147
A party’s selected remedy must be the “most appropriate to remedy the Denial of Rights” and
must be proportionate to the severity of the Denial of Rights.148 The complainant party must take
the panel’s view of severity “into account”149 when deciding on what remedy to impose, but this
does not appear to require the party to follow a panel’s view of the severity when constructing an
appropriate remedy. In other words, a party may impose its own view of the severity of the Denial
of Rights, which may be more or less severe than a panel’s view. To address disagreements that
the parties may have regarding severity, USMCA permits a respondent to request that a typical
Chapter 31 panel review the remedy if it believes the complainant did “not act in good faith” in
imposing an excessive remedy.150
After a complainant imposes remedies, the parties must “continue to consult on an ongoing basis
in order to ensure the prompt remediation of the Denial of Rights and the removal of
remedies.”151 Should they agree that the issue is resolved, the complainant party must remove all
remedies.152 If they disagree, then the respondent party may request that the rapid response panel
reconvene to consider whether the Denial of Rights continues, and the complainant party may
request a new verification.153 The panel must perform any new verification and make a
determination within 30 days after receiving the request.154 A panel determination that a Denial of
Rights continues to exist leads to three consequences. First, the parties must continue
consultations. Second, the respondent party may not request a new determination for at least 180
days. Third, the remedies selected by the complainant party will remain in place until the parties
resolve the matter.155
Failure to “Act in Good Faith” in Use of the Rapid Response Mechanism
If a party considers that another party “has not acted in good faith in its use of this Mechanism,
either with regard to an invocation of the Mechanism itself or an imposition of remedies that are
excessive in light of the severity of the Denial of Rights found by the panel,” then that party may
request establishment of a Chapter 31 panel.156 A Chapter 31 panel established to consider a
“good faith” claim is governed by the Chapter 31 rules described above. If a panel finds that a
party did not act in good faith in using the rapid response mechanism, the parties must seek to
resolve the dispute within 45 days after receiving the final panel report. The party that raised the
issue may suspend benefits in accordance with Chapter 31 as a remedy for the other party’s

147 Id. arts. 31-A.10.4, 31-B.10.4. There is no corresponding more severe remedy for facilities that provide services and
have received two or more adverse Denial of Rights determinations (e.g., option to deny a facility the right to provide
services).
148 Id. arts. 31-A.10.1, 31-B.10.1.
149 Id.
150 Id. arts. 31-A.11, 31-B.11. The concept of “good faith” is discussed further below with regard to failure to act in
good faith in the use of the rapid response mechanism.
151 Id. arts. 31-A.10.5, 31-B.10.5.
152 Id. arts. 31-A.10.6, 31-B.10.6.
153 Id.
154 Id.
155 Id. arts. 31-A.10.7, 31-B.10.7.
156 Id. arts. 31-A.11, 31-B.11.
Congressional Research Service
20

USMCA: Enforcing the Labor and Environment Provisions

failure to act in good faith or may choose to prohibit the other party from using the rapid response
mechanism for a period of two years.157
USMCA does not define “good faith,” but the concept is recognized as a general principle of
international law.158 Of relevance here is the concept’s role in imposing limits on how the
USMCA parties may invoke the procedures for resolving disputes, and how they impose remedies
on their trade partners. In relation to procedure, good faith may address situations in which a
party might initiate a dispute for an inappropriate purpose or might seek to change its position to
harm another party despite knowing the other party has relied on the prior position.159 For
example, it may be contrary to good faith for a party to agree that conduct at a particular facility
does not constitute a Denial of Rights, but then request a review of the facility, especially if the
request is designed to help a company that competes with the relevant facility. As to the substance
of a dispute—here, the imposition of remedies—good faith, which is linked closely to notions of
equity and justice, may be understood as a prohibition on abuse of rights. In other words, when
exercising a right, a party must do so “reasonably.”160 Thus, if a party imposed tariffs at a level far
higher than proportionate to compensate for the Denial of Rights with intent to harm the affected
facility or drive it out of business, this conduct might breach that party’s obligation to use the
mechanism in good faith.
Enforcement of Environmental Provisions
Like the USMCA’s Labor Chapter, its Environment Chapter provides several ways in which the
USMCA parties may seek to hold their trade partners accountable for measures or conduct that is
potentially inconsistent with the Agreement. This section describes both the formal and
cooperative mechanisms applicable to environmental obligations under USMCA.
Environmental Disputes Using Chapter 31
USMCA’s Environment Chapter falls within the scope of the Chapter 31 dispute settlement
mechanism. However, a party that believes it may eventually need to seek establishment of a
panel must undertake a more extensive process before requesting a panel.161 First, a party must
request consultations in essentially the same manner as that applicable to Chapter 31
consultations.162 If initial consultations do not resolve the issue, the parties must undertake two
additional levels of consultations before requesting establishment of a panel. The second level of
consultations involves discussions between the parties’ representatives on the USMCA
Environment Committee.163 This Committee is a body established under USMCA that performs
several negotiating and consultative functions, among others, and consists of senior government
representatives, or their designees, of the trade and environment authorities of each USMCA

157 Id.
158 ROBERT KOLB, GOOD FAITH IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 23 (2017).
159 Markus Kotzur, Good Faith (Bona Fide), in OXFORD PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (Jan. 2009),
https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1412#law-9780199231690-
e1412-div2-8.
160 Appellate Body Report, United States-Import Prohibitions of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products,
WT/DS58/AB/R, para. 158 (adopted Nov. 6, 1998).
161 USMCA, supra note 10, art. 24.32.
162 Id. art. 24.29.
163 Id. art. 24.30.
Congressional Research Service
21

USMCA: Enforcing the Labor and Environment Provisions

party.164 If the second level of consultations fail, then a party must request ministerial
consultations in which the consulting parties’ relevant ministers must seek to address the relevant
issue.165
Once consultations are complete, a party may request establishment of a panel.166 After a party
makes such a request, the Chapter 31 provisions for dispute settlement govern the matter. That
said, the Environment Chapter supplements the Chapter 31 provision that allows a panel to seek
expert opinions with guidance, stating a panel may “seek technical advice or assistance, if
appropriate, from an entity authorised under the relevant multilateral environmental agreement,”
and must allow the parties to comment on any such advice or assistance received.167
This approach parallels developments in dispute settlement for labor obligations between the time
of NAFTA’s entry into force and USMCA’s drafting. That is, it generally adopts the design for
enforcing environmental obligations in FTAs adopted after the May 10th Agreement, and departs
from NAFTA’s side agreement on the environment. The NAFTA side agreement focused on
cooperative resolution of disputes and included Chapter 31-style dispute resolution only for
claims involving “a persistent pattern of failure” by a country to “effectively enforce” its
environmental laws.168 By contrast, USMCA’s Chapter 31 provisions cover all of the
Agreement’s environmental obligations. Also paralleling the approach to enforcement taken in
the Labor Chapter, USMCA includes a rebuttable presumption that a failure to enforce certain
environmental laws does so in a manner affecting trade or investment between the parties, rather
than requiring a complaining party to provide evidence of this in its initial claim.169
Voluntary Resolution Through Cooperative Activities
USMCA’s Environment Chapter also creates a cooperative method, set forth in Articles 24.27
and 24.28, for addressing situations in which “a person” of one of the USMCA countries
complains that a party is “failing to effectively enforce its environmental laws.”170 Although
USMCA lacks a general obligation to enforce environmental laws, the method might still be used
to enforce one specific obligation, contained in Article 24.4.1, which states the following:
No Party shall fail to effectively enforce its environmental laws through a sustained or
recurring course of action or inaction in a manner affecting trade or investment between
the Parties, after the date of entry into force of this Agreement.171
USMCA defines action or inaction as “sustained” if it “is consistent or ongoing,” and “recurring”
if it “occurs periodically or repeatedly and when the occurrences are related or the same in
nature.”172 Due to the conditions that must be satisfied before a party may potentially violate
Article 24.4.1, not all failures to enforce an environmental law breach that Article. However, for

164 Id. art. 24.26.
165 Id. art. 24.31.
166 Id. art. 24.32.1.
167 Id. art. 24.32.2(a).
168 NAAEC, supra note 1, art. 22.1.
169 USMCA, supra note 10, art. 24.4.1 n.5.
170 Id. art. 24.27.1.
171 Id. art. 24.4.1.
172 Id. art. 24.4.1 n.3.
Congressional Research Service
22

USMCA: Enforcing the Labor and Environment Provisions

conduct that satisfies those conditions, it may be possible to use the cooperative method to
resolve the situation.
The cooperative method, while relying on a complaint from a person rather than a country, may
ultimately lead to recommendations for the USMCA countries to engage in cooperative activities
to improve enforcement of environmental laws, thereby serving indirectly as a “soft” method of
state-to-state dispute resolution (i.e., nonbinding and no suspension of benefits permitted).173 This
method relies on procedures and entities created in USMCA as well as entities established in the
Environmental Cooperation Agreement (ECA).174 The ECA retains and builds on the North
American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), a side agreement negotiated in
tandem with NAFTA.175
Submission of Complaints
A person from a USMCA country may submit a complaint alleging that a party is failing to
enforce its environmental laws to the Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental
Cooperation (CEC).176 The Secretariat is one of three bodies that comprise the Commission,
which oversees administrative, enforcement, or other implementation issues relating to the
NAAEC, and which will continue in a similar role under USMCA.177
Review of Submissions
Once the CEC Secretariat receives a submission, it must determine whether it meets the following
criteria:
 is in writing in English, French, or Spanish;
 clearly identifies the person making the submission;
 provides sufficient information to allow for the review of the submission,
including any documentary evidence on which the submission may be based and
identification of the environmental law of which the failure to enforce is based;
 appears to be aimed at promoting enforcement rather than at harassing industry;
and
 indicates whether the matter has been communicated in writing to the relevant
authorities of the party and the party’s response, if any.178
If the submission meets those criteria, then the CEC Secretariat must perform a substantive
review within 30 days of receiving the submission to determine whether a party must respond. In
making this determination, the CEC should consider the following factors:
 whether the submission alleges harm to the person making the submission;

173 Id. art. 24.28.7.
174 See Agreement on Environmental Cooperation among the Governments of the United States of America, the United
Mexican States, and Canada (2018), https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/assets/pdfs/agreements-
accords/cusma-aceum/cusma-ECA.pdf [hereinafter ECA].
175 See NAAEC, supra note 1.
176 USMCA, supra note 10, art. 24.27.1.
177 NAAEC, supra note 1, art. 8; ECA, supra note 174, art. 2.
178 USMCA, supra note 10, art. 24.27.2.
Congressional Research Service
23

USMCA: Enforcing the Labor and Environment Provisions

 whether the submission, alone or combined with other submissions, raises
matters about which further study would advance the goals of the Environment
Chapter;
 whether private remedies available under the party’s law have been pursued; and
 whether the submission is or is not drawn exclusively from media reports.179
Should the Secretariat determine that these factors weigh in favor of requiring a party’s response
to the submission, it must transmit the submission with a request for a response to the relevant
party.180 Once a party receives a request for a response, it must answer within 60 days after
receiving the request.181 If the party notifies the CEC Secretariat that the matter is already subject
to judicial or administrative proceedings, then the Secretariat may not proceed with the
submission.182 In either case, the party can provide additional information relevant to the
submission, such as enforcement practices or actions involving the environmental law at issue.183
Development of a Factual Record
After receiving a party’s response, the CEC Secretariat must determine whether the submission
merits development of a factual record.184 If it believes the response warrants such action, then it
must submit a proposal to the Council of the CEC, a body of Cabinet or equivalent-level
representatives of the USMCA countries.185 The Council may approve any such proposal with the
affirmative vote of two Council members.186
While preparing a factual record, the CEC Secretariat may consider and include information from
several sources, including the party whose law is at issue, interested persons, national advisory or
consultative committees, independent experts, and the Joint Public Advisory Committee, which is
another body of the CEC.187 It may also consider information “developed under the ECA” and
from publicly available sources.188
The CEC Secretariat must submit a draft record to the Council within 120 days, and any party
may offer comments on the draft.189 After reviewing the comments, the Secretariat must
incorporate them into, and make any appropriate revisions to, the final record, and submit that
record to the Council.190 Generally, the Secretariat must make a final record available to the
public, but the Council may prevent its release if two or more members agree to do so.191

179 Id. art. 24.27.3.
180 Id.
181 Id. art. 24.27.4.
182 Id. art. 24.27.4(a).
183 Id. art. 24.27.4(b).
184 Id. art. 24.28.1.
185 ECA, supra note 174, art. 3.1; NAAEC, supra note 1, art. 9.1.
186 USMCA, supra note 10, art. 24.28.2.
187 Id. art. 24.28.4; ECA, supra note 174, art. 2.2; NAAEC, supra note 1, art. 8.2.
188 USMCA, supra note 10, art. 24.28.4.
189 Id. art. 24.28.5.
190 Id.
191 Id. art. 24.28.6.
Congressional Research Service
24

USMCA: Enforcing the Labor and Environment Provisions

Recommendations for Cooperative Activities
The Secretariat must also submit the record to the USMCA Environment Committee, a body of
senior government representatives from the USMCA countries’ trade and environment
authorities.192 This Committee may review the record and “provide recommendations to the
[CEC] Council on whether the matter raised in the record could benefit from cooperative
activities.”193 Although USMCA does not require the parties to implement any recommendations
for cooperative activities designed to improve enforcement of environmental laws, the parties
must “provide updates” to the CEC Council and Environmental Committee “on final factual
records.”194 The contours of this duty remain undefined, but the updates may potentially include
information about any cooperative activities undertaken or about future enforcement actions
taken by the party whose law was the subject of the record.
United States-Mexico Environment and Customs Verification
USMCA also includes a side agreement between the United States and Mexico to address
situations when questions arise as to whether shipments of certain products comply with the
parties’ USMCA obligations.195 The customs verification mechanism applies only to the parties’
obligations to promote sustainability and conservation, and obligations to take steps to combat the
illegal take or trade in wild flora and fauna, fish, and forest products.196
For each of these products, the mechanism functions in the same manner. First, a party that
questions a shipment’s legality may submit a written request to the other party for information so
that the requesting party may “determine whether an importer has provided adequate and accurate
information” and then decide on the shipment’s legality.197 The party receiving the request must
respond within 20 days. If the party intends to share the information, it must state the time by
which it will do so, and transmit the information within 90 days of receiving the request.198 If it
intends not to share the relevant information, then it must provide a reason for refusing.199
After reviewing any information shared by the other party, the requesting party may submit
another request for information or ask the other party to take additional verification steps.200 If the
request includes a potential site visit, the other party may prohibit it, but must provide reasons for
doing so.201 If the party allows a site visit, officials of that party must lead the visit, and officials
from the requesting party may accompany them.202

192 Id. arts. 24.26.2-24.26.3, 24.28.7.
193 Id. art. 24.28.7.
194 Id. art. 24.28.8.
195 Environment Cooperation and Customs Verification Agreement between the United States and Mexico (Dec. 10,
2019).
196 Id. §§ II.1, III.1, IV.1 (referencing USMCA Articles 24.17, 24.19, 24.21, 24.22, 24.23).
197 Id.
198 Id. §§ II.2-3, III.2-3, IV.2-3.
199 Id. §§ II.2, III.2, IV.2.
200 Id. §§ II.4, III.4, IV.4.
201 Id. §§ II.5, III.5, IV.5.
202 Id.
Congressional Research Service
25

USMCA: Enforcing the Labor and Environment Provisions

Considerations for Congress
USMCA’s general state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism (Chapter 31), as well as the labor
and environment enforcement mechanisms, represent a shift from the approach to dispute
settlement taken in NAFTA, and raise several possible issues for Congress.
First, some Members of Congress and other stakeholders criticized the NAFTA dispute settlement
system as ineffective because one disputing party could block the appointment of panelists,
thereby rendering it difficult to use the NAFTA dispute settlement process. USMCA sets forth
procedures that may resolve the panel-blocking issue, but these new rules have not yet been
tested. When the USMCA parties apply these rules in future disputes, Congress may consider
whether they effectively resolve concerns about panel blocking. In addition, Congress may
consider more broadly whether the process for appointing panelists should be replicated in future
FTAs, and whether to address the appointment process, as given or as modified, in the negotiating
objectives of any future TPA legislation.
Second, USMCA subjects the labor and environment provisions to the general Chapter 31 dispute
settlement process. Congress’s list of “trade negotiating objectives” in current TPA legislation
(located at 19 U.S.C. § 4201(10)(H)) includes that “enforceable labor and environment
obligations [be] subject to the same dispute settlement and remedies as other enforceable
obligations under the agreement.” Once Chapter 31 has been applied to labor and environmental
disputes, Congress may evaluate how effectively the process resolves these disputes. Ultimately,
dispute settlement mechanisms should serve to promote adherence to or implementation of
substantive objectives in the FTAs. In other words, a fundamental design question is whether the
purpose of the obligation is best served by the chosen means for resolving disputes involving that
obligation.
If Congress determines that Chapter 31 is not resolving disputes involving the labor or
environment obligations effectively (however Congress may choose to define and measure
effectiveness), Congress may consider modifying the negotiating objectives in any future TPA
legislation. Alternatively, if some of the difficulty in using Chapter 31 arises from the substantive
prerequisites to bringing a claim (e.g., the threshold for proving a legal claim is too demanding),
Congress could consider whether to encourage USTR to negotiate different substantive
obligations, rather than change the dispute settlement procedures. These same considerations
apply to use of the new facility-specific rapid response mechanisms. Once these rapid response
mechanisms have been used, Congress may consider whether to encourage the executive branch
to modify the mechanisms or the substantive labor obligations addressed by the mechanisms.
Finally, USMCA does not include a provision that makes reports issued by Chapter 31 panels or
as part of the facility-specific rapid response mechanisms binding on the parties. In other words,
even if a panel report determines that a party’s measure or conduct is inconsistent with a USMCA
obligation, the relevant party is not required to alter its measure or conduct. Similarly, U.S.
legislation states that panel reports have “no binding effect on the law of the United States,” and
therefore do not require changes in U.S. law or practice.203 Nonetheless, a party’s failure to
rescind or eliminate a contested measure may ultimately lead the complaining party or parties to
suspend the Agreement’s benefits or impose other remedies on the responding party. If this
situation arises, Congress may consider whether it prefers to amend or rescind a law or potentially
face negative consequences from the United States’ trading partners.

203 19 U.S.C. § 4207(c).
Congressional Research Service
26

USMCA: Enforcing the Labor and Environment Provisions

Author Information

Nina M. Hart

Legislative Attorney

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46793 · VERSION 1 · NEW
27

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

May. 14, 2021

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON