AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Edited Legal Collections Data

You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Edited Legal Collections Data >> 2005 >> [2005] ELECD 233

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Help

"USA: Massachusetts State Act Regulating State Contracts with Companies doing Business with or in Burma (Myanmar), 1996" [2005] ELECD 233; in Tully, Stephen (ed), "International Documents on Corporate Responsibility" (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2005)

Book Title: International Documents on Corporate Responsibility

Editor(s): Tully, Stephen

Publisher: Edward Elgar Publishing

ISBN (hard cover): 9781843768197

Section: Chapter 10

Section Title: USA: Massachusetts State Act Regulating State Contracts with Companies doing Business with or in Burma (Myanmar), 1996

Number of pages: 4

Extract:

10. USA: Massachusetts State Act Regulating
State Contracts with Companies doing
Business with or in Burma (Myanmar), 1996

Commentary: The Massachusetts Act (Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 7,
s22G-22M) illustrates the leverage exerted by government procurement over
commercial behaviour. The technique was also used against US corporations to
address South African apartheid. The Act contemplated a restricted purchase list
(section 22J) and annual reporting (22M). Under section 22L, contracts violating these
provisions would become void. However, the Act only applied to those entered into
after its entry into force, thereby leaving existing contracts unaffected until renewal.
The National Foreign Trade Council successfully challenged the constitutionality of
this Act for infringing the federal foreign affairs power, violating the foreign commerce
clause and subverting federal legislation: National Foreign Trade Council v Baker 26 F.
Supp 2d 287 (D Mass 1998); National Foreign Trade Council v Natsios 181 F.3d 38 (1st
Cir 1999); Crosby v National Foreign Trade Council 2000 US LEXIS 4153 (US Sup Ct).
Additionally noteworthy is that this Act was challenged by the EC and Japan in 1997
as inconsistent with the WTO's Agreement on Government Procurement. Although
the WTO's dispute settlement mechanism was invoked during 1998, the panel was
suspended in 1999 on account of the Supreme Court's decision.



Section 1

Section 22G
For the purposes of sections twenty-two H to twenty-two M, inclusive, the following words
shall, unless the context indicates otherwise, have the following meanings:

`Comparable low bid or offer': a ...


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ELECD/2005/233.html