Sarah E. Lysons


This Comment argues that the London Court of International Arbitration will be able to resolve disputes involving softwood lumber but not resolve the softwood lumber dispute. Part II reviews the history of the dispute. Part III discusses the lessons that Canada and the United States have learned about resolving trade disputes, several of which are reflected in the current agreement. Part IV examines why, although the current agreement provides a degree of neutrality and finality to the dispute that prior regimes lacked, inherent political pressures will prove too large for even this agreement. Finally, Part V concludes that the dispute might only be resolved with an economic compromise.