December 8, 1998
The WTO's Shrimp-Turtle Decision: Free Trade vs. the Environment?

Featuring John H. Jackson, Georgetown University Law Center; David Schorr, World Wildlife Fund; Steven Charnovitz, Global Environment & Trade Study; and Kanthi Tripathi, Minister for Commerce, Embassy of India.

On October 12, the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization upheld a U.S. law designed to protect sea turtles endangered by shrimp fishing, but faulted the United States on how the law was being administered. Although it was immediately condemned by environmental groups, the decision is being hailed by some observers as an important affirmation of the right of nations to pursue conservation measures. Does the WTO decision block the pursuit of legitimate environmental goals, or is it merely a signal that environmental policies must be carefully crafted to avoid arbitrary discrimination and unnecessary trade restriction? Click to listen to this informative discussion of the implications of the recent shrimp-turtle decision.

November 21, 1998
2nd Annual Conference on Technology and Society: Washington vs. Silicon Valley.

Cosponsored with Forbes ASAP, Fairmont Hotel, San Jose, CA. Speakers include Dr. Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate in Economics, Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle Corp., Bob Metcalfe, VP Technology, International Data Group, and Scott Cook, Chairman of the Board, Intuit Corp.

October 22, 1998
16th Annual Monetary Conference: Money in the New Millennium: The Global Financial Architecture.

Featuring Lawrence H. Summers, William Poole, Jeffrey Sachs, and Steve Hanke.

October 16, 1998
Privacy Pandemonium: What the EU's Privacy Directive Means for the U.S.

Featuring Peter Swire, Ohio State University, John E. Calfee, Author, Fear of Persuasion, Marc Rotenberg, Electronic Privacy Information Center, and Solveig Singleton, Cato Institute.

On October 25, 1998, European Union member-nations will ask that U.S. companies doing business in Europe provide "adequate" privacy protections or face sanctions. Panelists address the reasons for enacting this new and broad regulatory regime. Are such laws an effective strategy for safeguarding human rights from oppressive governments or protecting consumers from zealous marketing?

June 23, 1998
COLLATERAL DAMAGE: THE ECONOMIC COST OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

This all-day conference explored the current and potential conflicts between U.S. foreign policy and the liberty and well-being of American citizens. The conference focused on the ways that U.S. foreign policy infringes on the freedom of Americans to trade, invest and communicate with the rest of the world.

May 27, 1998
The Immorality of Trade Sanctions

Featuring Father Robert A. Sirico, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty; with comments from Doug Bandow, Cato Institute.

Must Americans choose between morality and the marketplace when shaping U.S. trade and foreign policy? Some proponents of economic sanctions argue that moral considerations should trump commercial interests when deciding trade policy toward Cuba, China and other countries with poor human rights records. But Father Robert Sirico, a Roman Catholic priest and president of the Acton Institute, contends that U.S. sanctions policy undermines American ideals of free trade, peace, and global prosperity. Sanctions are less likely to promote moral ideals than they are to exaggerate tensions and lead to further conflict. Father Sirico, who was in Cuba during Pope John Paul II's recent visit, offers his analysis of U.S. policy toward religious persecution and human rights abuses abroad. Cato Senior Fellow Doug Bandow adds his comments on the morality of U.S. sanctions policy.

May 12, 1998
Should the United States Pursue a Global Investment Treaty?

Featuring William C. Danvers, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; Robert K. Stumberg, Georgetown University Law Center; Stephen J. Canner, United States Council for International Business; and Daniel Price, Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy LLP.

April's deadline has passed without the world's richest nations agreeing on a proposed global investment treaty. The Multilateral Agreement on Investment would prohibit governments from discriminating against foreign-owned firms, expropriating property without compensation and imposing performance standards such as export requirements and local-content rules. Advocates of MAI say it would provide legal protection for international property and encourage the expansion of foreign investment. Some opponents claim the treaty would undermine the sovereign power of governments, including those of states, to determine their own labor, environmental, and development policies. Will the MAI become reality? Should it?

May 8, 1998
Should We Open the Door for High-Skilled Immigrants?

Featuring Stuart Anderson, Immigration Subcommittee, U.S. Senate; Bruce Josten, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and John Reinert, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.

Congress may vote in May on a bill that would raise the annual quota on high-skilled immigrants from 65,000 to 95,000. America's high-technology companies complain that, without a higher quota, they face a critical shortage of qualified engineers and programmers. They say the existing shortage has delayed the creation of new products and could force U.S. firms to consider moving production offshore. Opponents of raising the quota, including organized labor and anti-immigration groups, say that no shortage exists and that a larger supply of foreign-born workers will drive down wages. If Congress fails to raise the quota, this year's H-1B visas for high-skilled workers will likely run out by June. Do high-skilled workers take American jobs, or do they add to our nation's wealth by creating new products and opportunities?

May 7, 1998
Are America's Immigrants Assimilating?

Featuring John J. Miller, Author, The Unmaking of Americans: How Multiculturalism Has Undermined America's Assimilation Ethic (Free Press, 1998); with comments by Cecilia Muñoz, Vice President of Policy, National Council of La Raza.

April 29, 1998
Will the Sun Ever Set on Antidumping Orders?

Featuring Kenneth Pierce, Willkie Farr & Gallagher; David W. Oliver, International Trade Commission; Roger Schagrin, Schagrin Associates; and Bernard Carreau, U.S. Department of Commerce.

An important achievement of the GATT Uruguay Round was the adoption of a new "sunset" requirement that, with limited exceptions, antidumping orders be revoked after a maximum of five years. To maintain protection, a "sunset review" must determine that revocation would lead to recurrence of both dumping and injury. According to the WTO agreement, revocation is intended to be the norm and continuation the exception. As the United States now prepares to commence sunset reviews, several hotly-contested legal issues threaten to undermine this outcome. Click above for an informative discussion by representatives of interested parties and relevant regulatory agencies of how implementation of the sunset provision is proceeding.

March 26, 1998
Rethinking Economic Sanctions

Featuring Ambassador Alan P. Larson, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, U.S. Department of State; Angela Ellard, Trade Counsel, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives; and Leon T. Hadar, Adjunct Scholar, Cato Institute.

Has America's use of economic sanctions gone too far, damaging both our economy and foreign relations? A bill now before Congress, the Sanctions Reform Act, would require that new sanctions initiatives include a cost estimate, a statement of objective, and a two-year sunset provision. Ambassador Larson, adviser to an executive-branch working group on sanctions, shared the administration's view on sanctions. Angela Ellard explained the effort among free-traders in Congress to curb the use of sanctions. Leon Hadar, who has written a new Cato study of U.S. sanctions against Burma, expressed skepticism that Congress can resist the temptation to misuse sanctions.

March 24, 1998
A Safe Haven No More? Fixing U.S. Asylum Law

Featuring Michele Pistone, Georgetown University Law Center; Bo Cooper, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service; and Mark Krikorian, Center for Immigration Studies.

On April 1, the United States will begin enforcing a strict, one-year filing deadline for immigrants seeking asylum from persecution. In 1996 Congress enacted the deadline along with a new expedited removal process in reaction to alleged abuses of the asylum system. But Michele Pistone, author of a Cato study on the issue, contends that the problem was solved by administrative reforms and that the new law jeopardizes the safety and even the lives of legitimate asylum seekers by ignoring their special circumstances. Bo Cooper of the INS discusses the challenge of enforcing the new laws. Mark Krikorian argues that the 1996 reforms were necessary to close a loophole in U.S. immigration law.