Canada-United States Relations Research Articles

A Cooperative Disagreement: Canada-United States Relations and Revolutionary Cuba, 1959–93. John M. Dirks

<i>A Cooperative Disagreement: Canada-United States Relations and Revolutionary Cuba, 1959–93</i>. John M. Dirks

Canada-United States Relations in the Environmental Field

With the globalization of environmental issues, the impact of environmental pollution on people's lives has become increasingly important. Environmental issues have become increasingly urgent for governments and people in Canada and the United States, primarily due to the growing popularity of industrialization and urbanization. With the longest Canada-U.S. border in the world, the two countries' environmental relationship will directly impact environmental issues on both sides of the border. In terms of environmental policies and diplomatic relations, both countries played an excellent role as the first group of developed countries to emerge from the environmental movement. Based on many scholars' explorations and perspectives on the environmental relationship between Canada and the United States. This article will focus on the environmental policies of the two countries in the mid-to-late 20th century, exploring cross-governmental interactions as well as cross-border scientific and technological collaboration in the context of environmental policies from both countries. Meanwhile, the United States, the most powerful country of the period, has been a role model and an object of imitation in the environmental field for Canada and other countries. However, as the closest neighborhood, the United States has influenced Canada's environmental development positively and negatively, either directly or indirectly.

Hydro Diplomacy: Canada-U.S. Hydroelectricity Exports and Regulations Prior to the NEB

ABSTRACT Energy and environmental diplomacy factors were a major, though often unrecognized, part of Canada-United States relations prior to the Cold War. Hydroelectricity was the most important of these factors, particularly power exported from the Canadian side of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin. The history of Canada-U.S. hydroelectricity relations, exports, and regulations offered here covers the key steps, institutions, and actors in the evolution of hydroelectricity geopolitics and governance regimes during the first two-thirds of the twentieth century. Most of the earliest large Canadian hydropower projects were built on or planned for border waters, which, after the creation of the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty, required formal coordination with the United States. Over the following half-century, prospective power projects on border waters continued to dominate the diplomatic dialogue. Federal governments or agencies established broad export restrictions, altering them occasionally, but often subnational governments, special interests, and specific power projects played as large a role in shaping the power trade. The result was a constantly shifting political and regulatory context, albeit one that generally trended toward cooperation and reduced barriers to electricity integration.

Tolerant allies: The Joint Arctic Weather Stations, Canadianization, and Canada–United States relations in the Cold War Arctic

From 1947–1972, the Joint Arctic Weather Stations (JAWS) program transformed Canada’s High Arctic. This article focuses on Canada’s aspirations to “Canadianize” the joint program from the late 1940s to the late 1960s. Both Canada and the United States questioned the extent and form of American involvement in the JAWS program intermittently over 25 years of joint operations. Was Canadianization of these remote weather stations necessary or practical? This article concludes that, in retrospect, the conventional, dominant narrative that emphasizes the ongoing American threat to Canada’s Arctic sovereignty seems misplaced with respect to the JAWS story.

‘Hell, they’re your problem, not ours’: Draft Dodgers, Military Deserters and Canada-United States Relations in the Vietnam War Era

Despite the fact tens of thousands of United States draft dodgers and military deserters came to Canada to escape the Vietnam War, the U.S. government did not launch a formal protest to the Canadian government. “‘Hell, they’re your problem, not ours’” explores why, for example, U.S. diplomats would criticize Sweden for accepting dodgers and deserters and not Canada. This discrepancy will be examined through a transnational perspective which takes into consideration Canada’s standing in U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War in general and the Vietnam War in particular.

The Politics of Canadian Foreign Policy, 4th Edition, by Kim Richard Nossal, Stéphane Roussel and Stéphane Paquin

Reviewed by: Christopher J. Kukucha (), University of LethbridgeMy first encounter with the second edition of Kim Richard Nossal's now-classic Politics of Canadian Foreign Policy was as a new MA student in Terry Keenleyside's Topics in Canadian Foreign Policy course at the University of Windsor. It is impossible to underestimate the importance of that first semester on my professional and personal life. Tom Keating, who would become my PhD supervisor, had earlier experienced Keenleyside's mentorship, and Duane Bratt would soon follow. Today both are valued colleagues and friends. Nossal's book, with its fascinating discussion of Canadian provincial international activity, would also serve as a catalyst for ideas that continue to shape my career to this day. Several years passed following the publication of the third edition in 1997, and I sadly assumed the project had run its course. Needless to say, I was excited to see a fourth edition in 2015, now with two new highly respected co-contributors (Stephane Roussel and Stephane Paquin). Once again, the latest edition is an extremely important contribution to the study of Canadian foreign policy.Much has changed over the 30-year life span of this book. When it first appeared in the mid-1980s, it was the height of the Cold War; Brian Mulroney was moving from opposition leader to prime minster, and the Pierre Trudeau era, with its foreign policy defined by the recognition of China, reduced commitments to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and often strained Canada-United States relations, was coming to an end. Today, under the nascent leadership of Justin Trudeau, Canada is quickly leaving behind Stephen Harper's mistrust of multilateralism, with a renewed emphasis on climate change, peacekeeping, and once again, closer ties with China. As Nossal, Roussel, and Paquin make clear, however, the argument running through the first three editions remains remarkably consistent in the fourth; Only the milieu, the problems of the time, and the personalities have changed. International anarchy, asymmetrical power relations, the pursuit of self-interest, and pressures from domestic government and societal pressures all remain constant regardless of the era (xv).The organization of the book has also followed a stable path over the years, although it is interesting to compare the first edition with this latest arrival. In 1985, the literature on Canada's foreign relations was very much driven by Canada's place in the world as a dependent, principal, or middle power. As such, Part One, The Parameters of Decision, focused 25 pages on the external dimension of Canadian foreign policy, but it also included a brief discussion of the often-marginalized relevance of non-governmental interests, and even the role of dominant ideas, anticipating a constructivist trend gaining popularity in the study of international relations. …

Bringing the transgovernmental in: the public service in the Canada-United States relationship

This article examines an often-overlooked dimension of Canada-United States relations : relations between Canadian and American public servants. Meetings between political leaders of Canada and the US may make front-page headlines, but it is the myriad of networks and interconnections between Canadian and American public servants that constitute the lion’s share of bilateral activity. Notwithstanding the multitude of daily cross-border, inter-departmental, and inter-agency interactions, there has been relatively little systematic theoretical or empirical attention to the public sector dimension of Canada-US relations. Public administration scholars tend to train their sights on the domestic level and pay little or no attention to the public management dimension of international affairs. A recently edited volume studying contemporary Canadian public administration does not examine these relations. International relations scholars, for their part, tend to oversimplify domestic politics and policy institutions. This text contributes to bridging this gap in the literature. It builds on the concept of transgovernmentalism, relations between legislative, executive, regulatory, and judicial players with their international counterparts. It examines the mechanisms and processes by which public sector players interact across borders (e.g., informal relations, formal agreements, joint organizations, etc.). The article explores the relationship between the degree of bilateral policy coordination in a policy field or issue area and the mechanisms of transgovernmental activity characterizing cross-border relations in that policy domain.

Teaching Canada–US relations: Three great debates

The study of Canada–United States relations has a long, rich history as an interdisciplinary project, closely engaged with contemporary policy debates, and well integrated in the teaching curricula at Canadian universities. As the two societies become ever more tightly enmeshed—economically, demographically, culturally, and even politically—and the two states’ diplomatic relationship becomes ever more complex, the study of that relationship can and should become more reflective, purposive, and coherent. Having reviewed recent historiographical developments, in which the field’s three core debates have been taken in important new directions, we are hopeful about the prospects for renewal and reinvention. The challenge for students of Canada–US relations today, we maintain, is therefore to continue to unearth insights from the original great debates but also to challenge and revise the broader debates themselves to develop a more robust understanding of the relationship past, present, and future.

Subnational diplomacy in the Great Lakes region: toward explaining variation between water quality and quantity regimes

/RésumésSubnational diplomacy is increasingly important in foreign policy and Canada-United States relations. The Great Lakes region represents an excellent laboratory for studying the role of subnational governments in foreign policy. This article focuses on water policy in the Great Lakes region, and the central research question of why subnational diplomacy varies across water quality and water quantity policy regimes. Using a comparative case approach, the paper investigates the degree to which the character of the policy challenge itself, constitutional and institutional arrangements, and the nature of federalism and intergovernmental relations in the two countries explain differing levels of subnational diplomacy. One case illustrates how institutionalized relationships between subnational units that share interests in a transboundary resource cooperate to engage in subnational diplomacy; the other illustrates more traditional involvement of subnational governments in foreign policy, highlighting that these factors hold significant promise in explaining variation in subnational diplomacy and support existing theory in the paradiplomacy literature.

“Homegrowns” in North America: the changing face of radical Islamism, and its implications for Canada–United States relations

This article argues that, paradoxical as it might seem, the rise of “homegrown terrorism” over the past several years will serve to reinforce the security bonds between the United States and Canada, in a way radically different from the impact of the 9/11 attacks upon the two neighbours. Its focus is upon the events of recent years, both in North America and abroad, associated with radical Islamists and the responses thereto.

From Special Relationship to Third Option: Canada, the U.S., and the Nixon Shock

The articulation of the so-called Nixon Shock of August 15, 1971, more formally called the New Economic Program (NEP), was an epochal event in the history of Canada-United States relations, that stimulated Ottawa consider new world in which the U.S. did not bulk so large. (1) The Canadian assumption that the United States would always accord their country consideration when calculating the American interest as, for example, it had when it had exempted Canada from the Interest Equalization Tax in 1963, was shaken on that day. (2) Much their surprise, Canadians found themselves no different in American eyes than Western Europeans and the Japanese. The special relationship (3) that had existed between the two North Americans at least since the Second World War, was officially over as the various elements of the NEP took effect, among them the temporary ten percent import surcharge, the Domestic International Sales Corporation (DISC), which encouraged export activity by allowing tax deferral within the DISC while it was more or less exclusively engaged in export sales activity, ten percent tax credit for investment in American-produced machinery, and job development tax credit. was an article of faith in Ottawa in the dog days of summer 1971 that these measures would hinder Canadian sales the U.S. causing widespread economic dislocation. The NEP was made necessary by the declining position of the United States in the global economy, or so its author, Secretary of the Treasury John Connally, believed. He was determined to head off what the Administration believe[d] be the most important non-military threat U.S. national security: economic competition from Japan and Western Europe. (4) This had been made worse by the United States' involvement in debilitating war in Vietnam that sapped the moral fiber of the country and took its gold pay for bombing runs in the North and troops in the South. As well, American technology seemed be second-rate when compared with that of Japan, as did U.S. business organization and practice. In short, on various levels decision-makers were forced confront the reality that their nation seemed be less powerful and less essential global prosperity than it had been in the past. also made Americans more defensive and less willing adopt policy of noblesse oblige when considering requests by smaller petitioners like Canada. reflected a certain self-doubt, ... rather pervasive pessimism. (5) And the fact that the U.S. current account balance struggled maintain itself in the black through most of the 1960s, and went from small surplus in 1970 deficit of US$3 billion in 1971, did not help at all, especially as Canada seemed be doing quite well, at least in terms of its trade surplus with the U.S.; that had increased from CDN$750 million in 1970 CDN$1.1 billion the following year. (6) The NEP was draconian and as the Canadian political scientist, Peter Dobell, has pointed out, It [was] no exaggeration suggest that the effect in Canada of these short-term measures and of the negotiations that followed their introduction produced national catharsis. (7) They were also, as one critic later characterized them, the equivalent putting gun the head of the rest of the world. (8) The program vaulted the U.S. back into the center of Canadian calculations from whence it had strayed following the publication of Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's vision of foreign policy contained in Foreign Policy for Canadians which had minimized comment on the United States. This article investigates the effects of Nixon's 1971 announcement on Canada, providing lens onto relations between the North Americans as Ottawa sought cope with its changed circumstances. Why was the U.S. performing so poorly, relatively, in economic terms by the later 1960s? The assistant the president for international economic affairs, Peter Peterson, had some ideas as well as some thoughts on how address them. …

Canada-United States Relations

FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU in the 1970s, no foreign policy issue was more important, or more elusive, than relations with the United States. Previous governments had tried to tackle that thorny relationship, most recently in the Merchant-Heeney Report of 1965 (named for the two diplomats who wrote it), which stimulated more heat than light when it suggested that 'quiet diplomacy' was the best way to deal with differences between the two. Prudently, Trudeau's white paper, Foreign Policy for Canadians, did not deal systematically with relations with the United States, and Mitchell Sharp, his secretary of state for external affairs, was left to explain weakly that the United States was so omnipresent in the study that a separate treatment was unnecessary.Canadian politicians liked to talk of Canadian-American relations as if they were shaped by Canada alone. The reverse was more often the case, although American initiatives were as often as not unconscious. For example, in the mid-1960s Congress set out to amend long-standing injustices in American immigration law. The revised act ended discrimination against whole areas and, therefore, whole races.(1) A side-effect, largely unnoticed in Canada, was that free admission of Canadians (among other North and South Americans) to the United States came to an end. Free passage of emigrants, which predated confederation, suddenly vanished, and Canada for the foreseeable future would be treated just like any other foreign country.Trudeau was less influenced by the United States, its politics or its values, than any other twentieth-century Canadian prime minister. Attempts to get him to pay attention to contemporary American phenomena, like sport, failed. 'The only American media he bothered following was American movies,' his campaign manager once lamented.(2) (And movie stars: Trudeau did date Barbra Streisand, among others.) In any case, he was not unduly worried about American influence. The United States was a great power, and great powers had their interests, including the security of their neighbourhood. Canada was necessarily affected; that was a fact of life. Americans might have been reassured by the fact that he did not see the United States as especially malignant - except that he extended the same consideration to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was a great power like the United States, and, like the United States, it believed that its sphere of influence guaranteed its own security. That explained, though it did not entirely excuse, the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. It also explained the West's almost purely symbolic response. The strictly limited reaction of the West in effect recognized that what the Soviet Union did behind the Iron Curtain was primarily its own affair.Trudeau visited the Soviet Union in the spring of 1971. There was little of substance on the Canadian-Russian agenda to make the visit memorable. Certain remarks by Trudeau, however, were memorable, especially his public discussion of the 'overwhelming presence' of the United States in Canadian life. American diplomats winced. So, too, did Canada's ambassador to Moscow, Robert Ford, for whom Trudeau's statement and his choice of words were revealing: 'I am... certain that it was a psychological lapse, since it reflected a deep-seated distrust of the United States and a friendly feeling toward the Soviet Union on the part of the prime minister.'(3)The American reaction was carefully hidden, occasionally mistrustful, and usually nuanced. President Richard Nixon reacted with irritation. His national security adviser and foreign policy guru, Henry Kissinger, an ex-Harvard professor, was shrewder. Canada, he believed, acted in counterpoint to the United States. 'We are so powerful,' he argued in 1974: 'whatever identity they have, they get in opposition to us.' As for Trudeau, Kissinger considered him 'intelligent, foppish and a momma's boy.' It was not a bad impression as far as it went, though later Kissinger would gild it for his memoirs. …

Franklin Roosevelt and the Origins of the Canadian-American Security Alliance, 1933-1945: Necessary, but Not Necessary Enough

Introduction A Perfectly Logical and Sensible Thing: Canadian-American Security Relations Prior to 1937 The United States Will Not Stand Idly By: Defending Canada, 1937-1939 Far Better to Trust in the Honor of the United States: Canada-United States Relations, 1939-1941 Not a Particularly Heroic Role: Canada Confronts the United States, 1941-1942 Terribly Serious About the Wrong Things: Roosevelt and Declining American Interest in Canada, 1942-1945 Bibliography Index

On Being a Positive Force

Conrad Black (winter 1997-8) wants Canada to be a 'first level power, not just a middle power, and argues that, to be so, we must end the ambiguity about Quebec's future and stop the brain drain to the United States. He is probably right about this, although my own experience abroad suggests that Canada is admired in many countries partly because we are able to make a virtue of the Janus-like face we present to the world -- in peacekeeping for example -- and because the ambiguity contains or postpones separation, a fate that others have suffered. In any event, Canadian leaders have sought, consciously or not, to make Canada's role in world politics a source of pride for all Canadians, and have usually succeeded. But, I agree that, if we fail to maintain what unity we do have, our foreign policy will count for little in world affairs.As for our relations with the United States, the pull of superior wealth and power will always be a major challenge. But whether this ought to lead us to build 'a system of civilized individualism,' as Black hopes, or to maintain at least a shell of collective responsibility for the well-being of our citizens, as I would prefer, is a question that can be argued elsewhere. Canada-United States relations, however, are obviously the first priority of Canadian foreign policy, and Black is right to emphasize them. To believe we ought to be 'supportive allies in all major issues external to North America' is another matter. Canadian governments have always walked a thin line between uneasy support and nervous doubt about American threat or use of force, direct or indirect, against weaker states, perceived either to be pawns in a game of great-power chess, as in Vietnam or Cuba, or as threats to American national interests, as in the case of Iraq. Where such use has some form of United Nations sanction, as it did in Korea and later in 1991 against Iraq, Canada has offered help. But otherwise we have preferred caution or to look the other way.Black is especially critical of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's occasional efforts to soften the edges of American policies during the cold war, but let me assure him that, during the early Reagan period, when I was in Moscow, no member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was more eager to cut virtually all non-diplomatic ties with the USSR than was Canada. When tension rose to dangerous levels in 1983, Trudeau, aware that his personal reputation in Moscow continued to enjoy respect, embarked on a tour of world capitals to propose ways of reducing tensions. Whether or not his mission helped in the end to do so, it was hardly an attempt to placate the Soviet Union, as I know from my efforts to persuade them to co-operate. …

Canada among Nations 1997: Asia Pacific Face-Off

Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1997, x, 325pp, $24.95The 13th volume in the venerable Canada Among Nations concentrates on Canada's involvement with a region alternatively conceived of as Asia or Asia Pacific. The focus is a valuable one considering that 1997 was Canada's Year of Asia Pacific, accompanied by more than 600 events across the country culminating in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) extravaganza in Vancouver, and, unbeknownst to the authors who completed their essays in late 1996, a year that was to initiate the largest economic crisis to face Asia since World War II. Unlucky thirteen.Together, the fifteen essays constitute a very useful snapshot of Canadian policy and thinking. In setting the broader context, John Kirton examines the style, structure, and substance of the foreign policy of Jean Chretien's government; Michael Hart the new dynamics of the global economy in which he argues that Canada must be 'quick, early and creative' in new trade regimes; and Donald Abelson Canada-United States relations with an emphasis on trade, foreign and defence policy, and environmental co-operation.Turning to the Pacific, Raymond Chan, Canada's secretary of state for Asia Pacific, assesses Canadian efforts at community-building in the region; Karen Minden, Nicole Grant, and Paul Irwin Canada's role in APEC, an organization they see 'changing the way governments in the region do business with each other' (p 120); Andrew Cooper the contrast between Canadian approaches to the region ('limited and somewhat distracted steps') and Australian ('giant and often jarring leaps') (p 146); Errol Mendes the tension between Canada's economic and strategic interests in Asia and the promotion of the Canadian values of human rights and democracy; Ozay Mehmet the issue of labour standards in the context of transPacific trade; Martin Rudner the dynamics of international educational mobility around the Pacific and its implications and opportunities for Canada; Amitav Acharya the Canadian role in the asean Regional Forum; Shannon Selin regional arms build-ups in East Asia; Ted McDorman Canadian efforts to support conflict resolution in the South China Sea through 'track two' workshops; Bijit Bora Canada's trade and investment linkages with Asia; and Bernie Frolic Canada's policy of engaging China and struggling to strike a balance between trade and human rights.The editors argue that there is a gap between rhetoric and reality in Canadian foreign policy which reflects 'reduced economic means and narrower horizons' (p 3). This is hard to dispute. But they make the more controversial argument that 'Canada has not yet made much of a mark in the Asia Pacific region and we have some distance to go before our status as an Asia Pacific nation is taken seriously by our APEC partners' (p 1). …

Acid Rain and Transboundary Air Quality in Canadian-American Relations

Acid was major environmental issue in Canada-United States relations during 1980s. Yet it seemingly disappeared from agenda of 1990s. Certainly no politicians looking to new millennium are likely to characterize as the worst environmental we have to face, as one referred to it in 1977. (1) The widespread public impression, only partly correct, is that problem has been or is being solved. Some observers would tend to point to negotiation and signing in 1991 of first-ever bilateral Air Quality Agreement as reason for changed agenda--and, for that matter, as a fine example of cooperation and mutual responsiveness that characterize Canadian-American relations. (2) Others, who focus more on instruments of domestic policy, would point to fact that both Canada and United States had adopted national controls by end of 1990. These analysts might argue that international agreements, by themselves, do little to stem rising tide of pollution; it is domestic policymaking and legislation that effect change. Such arguments are related to a long-standing scholarly debate in international studies over sources of policy change. Are these changes primarily domestic in origin, reflecting distinctness and sovereignty of states? Or are they more a result of external forces in an age of globalization? This broader debate is, in turn, related to one of core questions in Canadian-American relations--whether Canada as an external actor has much influence on United States or is dominated by its larger, more powerful neighbor. The purpose here is to trace troubled emergence of both domestic policies and Canada-United States Air Quality Agreement, and much less-troubled course of their implementation, in order to learn what we can about Canadian-American environmental relations. Three questions lie at heart of this analysis. Why did dominate bilateral environmental agenda of 1980s and then disappear? To what extent were this change and adopted policies matters of domestic politics or of international, especially bilateral, relations? And, finally, what does course of implementation suggest for future of as an item on bilateral agenda? To explore these questions requires some background on processes by which issue of arose and was eventually addressed in Canada and United States, and then some discussion of current status of question. Overall, this analysis will suggest there is a characteristic pattern of depoliticization and bureaucratization in dealing with environmental issues in Canadian-American relations. Putting Acid Rain on Agenda What is popularly known as acid rain is a complex set of physical and chemical phenomena by which gases, especially sulphur and nitrogen oxides (SO2 and NOx), emitted mostly from industrial processes, are transported through atmosphere, transformed into acidic compounds, and then deposited on land and water surfaces, often with serious negative effects on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. (3) Acidification of lakes and streams kills fish and other aquatic species. Acid also has a deleterious effect on various crops and on growth of certain types of trees, particularly in high altitudes, and can cause long-term damage to soils. The main sources of in North America are coal-fired electrical generating plants and nonferrous smelters. Although term became part of everyday vocabulary, it describes a problem not given to easy, layperson observation, unlike many types of water pollution or urban air pollution. The impact was having on North American environment (and that of Europe) was discovered and documented by dedicated scientific researchers. (4) In Canada, work of Eville Gorham and Richard Beamish was of particular importance scientifically while, in United States, key scientists included Gene Likens and Ellis Cowling. …

The Role of International Law in Canada-United States Relations

This paper explores the role of international in Canada-US relations. It concludes that, while international legal considerations are only one among many types of factors that influence Canadian or US government policies and decisions, their relations must necessarily be carried out in the context of a broad network of essentially legal arrangements, institutions and procedures. Consequently, any student of Canada-US relations who seeks a comprehensive and realistic understanding of how the two countries deal with each other cannot afford to ignore the role played by international law. More specifically the paper discusses a number of significant ways in which international helps to shape and order the two countries' mutual relations. These include: (1) the core of basic legal principles, such as the inviolability of borders and sanctity of treaty that form the infrastructure of their relations; (2) the network of more than 200 treaties and agreements as well as many more informal arrangements and understandings which structure and facilitate the millions of transactions that occur and each year between the two countries and their citizens and businesses; (3) the important joint commissions, such as the historically innovative Canada-US International Joint Commission which play a major role in dealing with shared water, boundary, pollution and other problems; and (4) the NAFTA and other trade agreements between the two countries which structure for their trade and investment relations. The paper also suggests that international may have a special relevance for Canada-US relations and ways of dealing with each other due to such factors as: (1) their legal culture and close relations between their legal communities; (2) their shared practical common law approach to problem-solving; and (3) the two countries' innovative development of a variety of dispute-avoidance mechanisms, principally through commitments to advance notification and consultation regarding emerging problems - commitments that are now pervasive in Canada-US agreements and understandings. Indeed, the paper suggests that this principle of advance notification and consultation may be on its way to becoming an expected and relied upon type of behavior - effectively a rule of local customary - in the way the two countries deal with each other. This paper was delivered at the Inaugural Conference of the Arthur Caplan Research Group in Canada - U.S. Studies at University College, University of Toronto.

The North American Political Economy in the Global Context: An Analytical Framework

The North American political economy (with apologies to Mexico) is a shorthand reference to the political economy of CanadaUnited States relations. This term does not presume a single economic (or political) system encompassing the two countries. It merely recognizes the extensive interdependence between the two economies, and the reality that many of the economic problems encountered by one or other of the two countries are in fact the product of the same global developments.1 The fundamental purpose of this essay is to identify the reasons for and nature of the responses by the Canadian and United States governments to global economic developments, and to explore alternative responses.

The Management of International Environmental Disputes in the Context of Canada-United States Relations: A Survey and Evaluation of Techniques and Mechanisms

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Compelling Disclosure by a Non-Party Litigant in Violation of Foreign Bank Secrecy Laws: Recent Developments in Canada-United States Relations

Compelling Disclosure by a Non-Party Litigant in Violation of Foreign Bank Secrecy Laws: Recent Developments in Canada-United States Relations