211
diversions from the Great Lakes basin. The agreement was approved by legislation in all states and a Joint Resolution of US Congress in 2008.
2. The Colorado River “Law of the River,” a collection of over a dozen treaties,
interstate compacts, federal acts of legislation, and court cases that govern rights
to the water in the Colorado River Basin as it is shared among the seven basin
states and Mexico.
3. Trade agreements such as the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) and the agreements underpinning the World Trade Organization
(WTO), which are adopted by acts of legislation rather than ratified as
international treaties.
4. The 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), which was ratified after a two-thirds vote of the US Senate in 1992.
In many cases, international and domestic laws covering natural resources such
as energy, water, and food share the same goals: conservation, long-term planning,
facilitation of resource development and trade, or promotion of human health and
safety. The concurrent need to protect interstate relationships, national sovereignty,
and the priorities of key powerful industries, results in the use of different mechanisms to achieve similar goals (Hall 2007). Many of the principles applied in international disputes—the geographical locus of the action that caused the dispute or
contractual agreements to submit to the jurisdiction of a particular sovereign, for
example—are also relevant to adjudicating disputes among US states, which retain
a degree of sovereignty vis-à-vis the federal government.
The USA’s interests in international law at the food, energy, water nexus relate
most directly to relationships between the USA, Canada, and Mexico, due to
geographical connectivity, in addition to other key agricultural trading partners such
as the European Union. Concerning water, the USA enjoys the privilege of being
Mexico’s upstream neighbor. Therefore, the Colorado River Compact failed to
incorporate Mexico’s interests for the first 23 years, treating this vital river as
something to be shared only among seven US states. Only in 1944, long after the
river’s annual flow had been over-allocated, was Mexico recognized as a party to the
Compact. In contrast, the USA is the downstream neighbor on about half the streams
along the US-Canadian border, providing an incentive for the USA to promote
equitable apportionments of water resources across this—and arguably other—
international boundaries.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Canada, Mexico, and the
European Union are the largest suppliers of foreign agricultural products to the
USA. At the same time, Canada has consistently remained one of the top two
importers of food from the USA. NAFTA frames the international relationships
among the USA, Mexico, and Canada with respect to water, food, and energy to
some degree. Reforms to NAFTA could enhance or inhibit (or prohibit) domestic
policies promoting the development of low-carbon energy sources, economically
sustainable food production, and environmental rules and regulations that protect
water. The direction of such changes will depend on the degree to which decisionmakers recognize the importance of FEW interconnectivity.
8 US Governance
diversions from the Great Lakes basin. The agreement was approved by legislation in all states and a Joint Resolution of US Congress in 2008.
2. The Colorado River “Law of the River,” a collection of over a dozen treaties,
interstate compacts, federal acts of legislation, and court cases that govern rights
to the water in the Colorado River Basin as it is shared among the seven basin
states and Mexico.
3. Trade agreements such as the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) and the agreements underpinning the World Trade Organization
(WTO), which are adopted by acts of legislation rather than ratified as
international treaties.
4. The 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), which was ratified after a two-thirds vote of the US Senate in 1992.
In many cases, international and domestic laws covering natural resources such
as energy, water, and food share the same goals: conservation, long-term planning,
facilitation of resource development and trade, or promotion of human health and
safety. The concurrent need to protect interstate relationships, national sovereignty,
and the priorities of key powerful industries, results in the use of different mechanisms to achieve similar goals (Hall 2007). Many of the principles applied in international disputes—the geographical locus of the action that caused the dispute or
contractual agreements to submit to the jurisdiction of a particular sovereign, for
example—are also relevant to adjudicating disputes among US states, which retain
a degree of sovereignty vis-à-vis the federal government.
The USA’s interests in international law at the food, energy, water nexus relate
most directly to relationships between the USA, Canada, and Mexico, due to
geographical connectivity, in addition to other key agricultural trading partners such
as the European Union. Concerning water, the USA enjoys the privilege of being
Mexico’s upstream neighbor. Therefore, the Colorado River Compact failed to
incorporate Mexico’s interests for the first 23 years, treating this vital river as
something to be shared only among seven US states. Only in 1944, long after the
river’s annual flow had been over-allocated, was Mexico recognized as a party to the
Compact. In contrast, the USA is the downstream neighbor on about half the streams
along the US-Canadian border, providing an incentive for the USA to promote
equitable apportionments of water resources across this—and arguably other—
international boundaries.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Canada, Mexico, and the
European Union are the largest suppliers of foreign agricultural products to the
USA. At the same time, Canada has consistently remained one of the top two
importers of food from the USA. NAFTA frames the international relationships
among the USA, Mexico, and Canada with respect to water, food, and energy to
some degree. Reforms to NAFTA could enhance or inhibit (or prohibit) domestic
policies promoting the development of low-carbon energy sources, economically
sustainable food production, and environmental rules and regulations that protect
water. The direction of such changes will depend on the degree to which decisionmakers recognize the importance of FEW interconnectivity.
8 US Governance