Federalism is key to establish bonds that create free trade
[Stephen, Associate Professor, Northwestern University School of Law. B.A. 1980, J.D. 1983, Yale, “Reflections on United States v. Lopez: "A GOVERNMENT OF LIMITED AND ENUMERATED POWERS": IN DEFENSE OF UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ,” 94 Mich. L. Rev. 752, Michigan Law Review, December, 1995]
A fourth and vital advantage to international federations is that they can promote the free movement of goods and labor both among the components of the federation by reducing internal transaction costs and internationally by providing a unified front that reduces the costs of collective action when bargaining with other federations and nations. This reduces the barriers to an enormous range of utility-maximizing transactions thereby producing an enormous increase in social wealth. Many federations have been formed in part for this reason, including the United States, the European Union, and the British Commonwealth, as well as all the trade-specific "federations" like the GATT and NAFTA.
Free trade is key to avert nuclear annihilation
Copley News Service ‘99
[Dec 1, LN]
For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by nuclear war. The specter of nuclear winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. Activists protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle apparently have forgotten that threat. The truth is that nations join together in groups like the WTO not just to further their own prosperity, but also to forestall conflict with other nations. In a way, our planet has traded in the threat of a worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative global economics. Some Seattle protesters clearly fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades past. But they're not. They're special-interest activists, whether the cause is environmental, labor or paranoia about global government. Actually, most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace activists, such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand Russell, the father of the nuclear disarmament movement, both of whom urged people and nations to work together rather than strive against each other. These and other war protesters would probably approve of 135 WTO nations sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the past might have been settled by bullets and bombs. As long as nations are trading peacefully, and their economies are built on exports to other countries, they have a major disincentive to wage war. That's why bringing China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so important. As exports to the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand for the goods we produce, the threat of hostility diminishes. Many anti-trade protesters in Seattle claim that only multinational corporations benefit from global trade, and that it's the everyday wage earners who get hurt. That's just plain wrong. First of all, it's not the military-industrial complex benefiting. It's U.S. companies that make high-tech goods. And those companies provide a growing number of jobs for Americans. In San Diego, many people have good jobs at Qualcomm, Solar Turbines and other companies for whom overseas markets are essential. In Seattle, many of the 100,000 people who work at Boeing would lose their livelihoods without world trade. Foreign trade today accounts for 30 percent of our gross domestic product. That's a lot of jobs for everyday workers. Growing global prosperity has helped counter the specter of nuclear winter. Nations of the world are learning to live and work together, like the singers of anti-war songs once imagined. Those who care about world peace shouldn't be protesting world trade. They should be celebrating it.
Federalism Good: International Trade
US federalism is key to solve international trade disputes – incorporation of state laws undermines our capacity to resolve conflicts between comparative precedent
Adam M. Smith, Chayes Fellow, Harvard Law School, 2006
(“Making Itself at HomeUnderstanding Foreign Law in Domestic Jurisprudence: The Indian Case” 24 Berkeley J. Int'l L. 218)
Secondly, the distinct makeup of American federalism suggests both a reason American judges have avoided foreign law and a rationale why U.S. jurists will come to increasingly rely on foreign precedent. The U.S. was founded as a weak federation of sovereign states, each maintaining extensive powers. 236 Key among these prerogatives is the maintenance of significant legal independence, which led to the development of different bodies of law in each state. Initially, states viewed one another's laws with suspicion, but the growth of interstate commerce and the rising power of the federal government forced this bias to dissipate. 237 As a result, modern state courts regularly cite the law of sister states. The existence of this body of comparative law within the United States has allowed American jurists the unique ability to be comparative without leaving the country. This phenomenon is one explanation why American judges have found it unnecessary to venture abroad for comparative precedents. Yet the same economic and political forces that compelled the states to respect one another's precedents are currently working on the United States and its "sister states" in the international arena. As international connections increase, transnational judicial disputes proliferate, and the need for the certainty of "global legal solutions" becomes apparent, it seems that the national state will have little choice but to follow the tradition established at the sub-national level and begin resorting to foreign law.