The ‘new NAFTA’ agreement between Canada, Mexico, and the United States maintained the system for binational panel judicial review of antidumping and countervailing duty determinations of domestic government agencies. In US–Mexico disputes, this hybrid system brings together Spanish and English-speaking lawyers from the civil and the common law to solve legal disputes applying domestic law. These panels raise issues regarding potential bicultural, bilingual, and bijural (mis)understandings in legal reasoning. Do differences in language, legal traditions, and legal cultures limit the effectiveness of inter-systemic dispute resolution? We analyze all of the decisions of NAFTA panels in US–Mexico disputes regarding Mexican antidumping and countervailing duty determinations and the profiles of the corresponding panelists. This case study tests whether one can actually comprehend the ‘other’. To what extent can a common law, English-speaking lawyer understand and apply Mexican law, expressed in Spanish and rooted in a distinct legal culture?

中文翻译：

---

Mi casa es tu casa？系统间争议解决的局限性

加拿大、墨西哥和美国之间的“新北美自由贸易协定”协议维持了对国内政府机构的反倾销和反补贴税决定进行双边司法审查的制度。在美墨争议中，这种混合系统汇集了来自民法和普通法的讲西班牙语和英语的律师，以解决适用国内法的法律争议。这些小组提出了有关法律推理中潜在的双文化、双语和双法（错误）理解的问题。语言、法律传统和法律文化的差异是否会限制系统间争议解决的有效性？我们分析了北美自由贸易协定小组在美墨争端中关于墨西哥反倾销和反补贴税决定的所有决定以及相应小组成员的概况。本案例研究测试一个人是否能够真正理解“他者”。普通法、讲英语的律师能在多大程度上理解和适用以西班牙语表达并植根于独特法律文化的墨西哥法律？