Research On The Case Of United Parcel Service Inc Alleges That Canada Has Breached NAFTA

China has implemented the development strategy from foreign capital for many years,and China has established economic development zones in many regions, from which Chineseenterprises and Chinese people have got many benefits. Through a case analysis method, thisarticle attempts to provide China more reference about the introduction of foreign capital, andthen China can promote the development of Chinese investment from foreign capital.This article studies the case that the United Parcel Service of America Inc (shortened theUPS Corporation) sues the Canada Government and the Canada Post, which happened inNorth American Free Trade Area. The improper place of Canada is mainly that the CanadaPost, as a state-owned enterprise, has a lot of superior benefits and privileges, and it is thiscaused the foreign investor---the UPS Corporation3charges.This paper is divided into three parts. They are the case introduction, the disputes of theparties and the suggestions of this case to China.The first part is “the introduction of the case”, this part consists of five parts---theindicter, the ones who are indicted, the third-parties, the statement of the claim, the processand decisions of the case.The indicter is the UPS Corporation, who is a worldwide international company,providing postal service. It established its branch in Canada (shortened the UPS Canada), theUPS Canada business parcel service in Canada. And the UPS Canada competes with theCanada Post in a certain range.The ones who are indicted are the Canada Government and the Canada Post. The CanadaPost, established in1981under the Canada Post Corporation Act1981, is a Canadianstate-owned enterprise, enjoying some monopoly privileges. And because of the monopolyprivileges, the Canada Post can get more opportunities to cooperate with lots of otherinternational service companies, which harms the interests of the UPS Canada. So the CanadaGovernment and the Canada Post are sued.The third-parties are the United States and Mexico. This case happened in NorthAmerican Free Trade Area, and the United States and Mexico, who had signed the NorthAmerican Free Trade Agreement, became the third-parties. The UPS Corporation alleges that the Canada Government has breached its obligationsunder the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and claims damages for the lossarising out of those alleged breaches. And the UPS Corporation assembles its claims underfive headings.During the trial，There is a fierce debate from both sides. After7years, this case isfinalized, and the UPS Corporation lost the case.The second part is “the disputes of this case”.Firstly, the first dispute is whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction over this case. TheCanada Government believes that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the UPS Corporation’slitigations. The Tribunal proves that he has the jurisdiction over this case from the followingfour aspects: time limits for submission of claims, the UPS Corporation listed the lossaccording to legal requirement, the differences between article1116and1117of the NAFTA,the behavior of the Canada Government and the Canada Post is not in violation of theobligations of the host country that the NAFTA provides.Secondly, the behavior of the Canada Post is the behavior of the Canada Government oris simply enterprise’s business behavior,the UPS Corporation believed that the behavior ofthe Canada Post is the behavior of the Canada Government, but the Tribunal points out thatthe behavior of the Canada Post is simply enterprise’s business behavior, not the behavior ofthe Canada Government what should have implemented government obligations, so theCanada Government and the Canada Post are not in violation of the obligations of theNAFTA.Thirdly, another dispute is whether the behavior of the Canada Post is the behavior of thedevelopment of cultural industry in Canada. The UPS Corporation believed that the behaviorof the Canada Post, as the Canadian periodical distributors, is not the behavior of thedevelopment of cultural industry in Canada, and it is only transport behavior. But the Tribunalpoints out that the behavior of the Canada Post, mailing publications, is the behavior of thedissemination of cultural products, and it is a part of Canadian cultural industry，so thebehavior of the Canada Post does not breach the obligations under the NAFTA.4Lastly, the last dispute is whether the UPS Canada and the Canada Post are in “likecircumstance”. The Tribunal and a number of experts pointed out that mail industry andexpress industry are two different industries, so the UPS Canada and the Canada Post are not in “like circumstances”, and so the Canada Post enjoying a range of superior treatment is notin violation of NAFTA.The third part is “Chinese several suggestions from the case”.Firstly, when Chinese people develop foreign trade, they should remember to fully usethe principle of fairness and justice. China should improve the transparency of governmentbehavior, and Chinese treatment to foreign investors and domestic investors should be same.Secondly, China should continue to develop state-owned enterprises and deepen thereform, and should separate government and enterprises. At the same time, China shouldremember to keep the enterprises owned to the Chinese government which are related toChinese national lifeline.Thirdly, the development of Chinese national culture industry should be heeded, andChina should develop Chinese cultural industry and cultural products, then China shouldpromote the exchanges and cooperate with foreign cultural industry and cultural products.Lastly, China should make full use of the world trade principle of “like circumstances”,and Chinese development should take Chinese national conditions into account. Chineseenterprises should become more professionally and more particularized. China shouldpromote the communication between Chinese different knowledge. And China should alsopromote the development of Chinese education. At the same time, Combined with Chinesespecific national conditions, Chinese enterprises should enjoy their own privileges in thespecial environment of their own country.