The proposed MAI would legally limit how and when nations, states or communities can define an investment policy. The MAI would require “national treatment” for all member countries, meaning that foreign investors must be treated equally in all cases. In addition, the MAI would prohibit “performance requirements” such as employment, reinvestment or other conditions that are used to regulate multinational companies that invest in certain municipalities. AMI supporters (such as the United States, Canada and several EU member states) continue to promote investment provisions that are similar to regional trade agreements, bilateral investment agreements, bilateral free trade agreements and discussions within the Global Trade Organization, which will be incorporated into the General Agreement on Trade in Services. Before the end of 1998, British Trade Minister Brian Wilson announced that investment negotiations could be transferred to the WTO. Each party ensures that all payments relating to an investment by an investor of another party can be transferred immediately to its territory and out of its territory. These transfers include, if not exclusively, that when a party or its designated agency makes a payment as part of an allowance, guarantee or insurance contract for an investment by an investor in the territory of another party, it recognizes the transfer of a right or right of that investor to the former party or its designated organization. , as well as the right of the former contracting party or its designated contracting party. to exercise such a right through an intervention regime and to exercise such a right to the same extent as its predecessor. The increase in global foreign direct investment is the result of competitive pressure, new technologies, privatization of state-owned enterprises and a more open policy towards investment in many countries. As part of the implementation of national policies or international agreements respecting the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; Answer: We are working to ensure that the final text of the MAI is fully compatible with federal, federal and local laws to promote social, economic and environmental objectives, and not to accidentally interfere in the environmental and regulatory provisions or enforcement provisions of our national legislation. Unlike many countries, the United States has an open investment climate that generally welcomes investments both domestically and abroad. Few U.S.
laws differ between investors because of their nationality or are contrary to MAI`s obligations. For example, laws designed to protect the safety, health and environment of workers are generally intended to discipline measures rather than discriminate against them because of the nationality of business owners. (A company that pollutes a river must stop polluting, no matter who owns the company.) Nevertheless, our ability to continue to enforce existing federal, regional and local laws, whether or not they comply with the MAI provisions, is protected by the MAI by our “Exceptions” schedule to the agreement. A contracting party cannot, by [inappropriate or discriminatory] [disproportionate] [disproportionate] [disproportionate] measures affect the exploitation, management, maintenance, use, enjoyment or sale of investments in its territory by investors of another party. One of the main objectives of the MAI is to prevent governments from seeking to discriminate against foreign investors on the basis of their nationality (subject, of course, to the exceptions contained in the annex that each country takes to differentiate it by nationality in sensitive sectors). This will not affect their ability to maintain, establish or impose labour or environmental standards, regardless of their level of application. Indeed, the countries negotiating the MAI are currently considering provisions to strengthen their commitment to maintaining labour and enviro standards.