Abstract
The United States is a party to many multilateral, regional, and bilateral trade agreements. Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, treaties trump inconsistent state law. Because of a recent World Trade Organization (WTO) case where Antigua challenged various U.S. state and federal gaming laws as being inconsistent with its commitments under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), many Americans fear that the commitments made under these trade agreements with respect to gambling and gambling services will threaten state regulation of gambling. Specifically, the concern lies with regional trade agreements such as the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) where private investors can bring a claim against a State to challenge domestic laws which are inconsistent with its trade commitments. This Comment seeks to dispel those fears by examining the WTO case between Antigua and the U.S., by comparing the dispute settlement mechanisms of the GATS and CAFTA-DR, and by analyzing an investor-state claim under CAFTA-DR, similar to Antigua’s claim under the GATS.
Recommended Citation
Timothy B. White,
Internet Gaming Trade Commitments: The Exaggerated Fears of U.S. Vulnerability Under Multiple Trade Agreements,
33
S. Ill. U. L.J.
321
(2009).
Available at:
https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/siulj/vol33/iss2/7