Abstract
The first panel constituted under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Facility-Specific Rapid Response Labor Mechanism (RRM) determined that it did not have jurisdiction over the situation presented to it by the United States. This Essay argues that the panel reached this conclusion based on a misperception of its mandate. Whereas the panel saw itself as a traditional adjudicatory body, the framing of an RRM panel’s mandate – to determine whether there has been a denial of labour rights at a worksite – is more similar to a factfinding mission’s mandate in international human rights law than it is to a state-to-state dispute settlement tasking as found in other areas of international economic law. Seeing the panel’s mandate this way makes it easier to understand how the procedural, methodological, and jurisprudential analyses of the panel and the parties converged in a murky hybrid.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
