After the 10-day deadline set by the Constitutional Court for people or organizations interested in the case to present arguments for or against the trade agreement signed between China and Ecuador last May, on Monday, September 11, 10 ‘amicus curiae’ were presented in favor instrument, as confirmed this Wednesday, September 13, by the Ministry of Production, Foreign Trade, Investments and Fisheries.

In the opposition, KS also won three seats, the ministry confirmed, explaining that one of amicus in support, he presented the same state portfolio.

The trade agreement between Ecuador and China continues its approval process, creating concern on the one hand and optimism on the other

“Nine of them were presented amicus curiae in favor of the constitutionality of the Agreement, which is supported by various production sectors. The Ministry of Production, Foreign Trade, Investments and Fisheries presented its own document in which the constitutionality of the Agreement is explained in detail, which, among other things, seeks to favor the production sectors by facilitating access to the Chinese market. to the world and to protect production sensitivities agreed with the sectors themselves,” said the ministry, which classified this phase as usual within the procedure of constitutional control of international instruments established in the Organic Law on Jurisdictional Guarantees and Constitutional Control.

However, he emphasized that the technical explanations, for and against, which the Court will consider at its own discretion, must focus on aspects of constitutionality. “In this context, Acción Ecológica, like any other person or organization that has a legitimate interest in the cause, can present these writings known as amicus curiae.”

These are the trade unions and institutions that presented amicus curiae in favor of the agreement:

These are the organizations and companies that expressed their views against the agreement

In it amicus presented by Acción Ecológica, concerns are highlighted for chapters of the agreement, such as investment and economic cooperation, as well as the application of the FTA.

They indicate that paragraph 10 of the CC opinion states that “if this Treaty is ratified, Ecuador would undertake to issue, amend or repeal laws” and add that “measures to be adopted in accordance with Article 2.1, which contains definitions of general application Contracts include any law, regulation, procedure, requirement or practice.

Environmental Action presented the ‘amicus curiae’ to the trade agreement signed between Ecuador and China

“Ecuador’s constitution is widely known for being progressive in terms of human rights and the granting of rights to nature, a condition that permeated other norms in different areas, in order to overcome the development paradigm and lay the foundations for Sumak kawsay or the good life. This even led to the adoption of decisions by this Court based on the aforementioned projections as a country,” the organization pointed out.

Meanwhile, in its position for the agreement, the Ministry of Production, Foreign Trade, Investment and Fisheries clarified that the various provisions and chapters of the Trade Agreement with China were negotiated in strict accordance with the constitutional provisions.

“This agreement includes chapters similar to other valid agreements, such as the European Union, EFTA and Chile, which the Constitutional Court has already declared constitutional. It is important to point out that the Agreement guarantees sovereignty in shaping public policies on environmental and labor protection issues, and reserves the right to take measures in the event of unfair trade practices,” the state department pointed out.

Find out why the agreement with China would not have the same problems as the one with Costa Rica in the Constitutional Court

As for the procedure to be followed, the ministry explained that when the submission deadline expires amicus curiae, The Court will continue to consider the Agreement from a constitutional perspective, with a deadline of 30 days for making a final decision.

“It is important to clarify that this process does not force the Constitutional Court to respond. These documents are considered references in support of his assessment of constitutionality if they are deemed relevant, and which the Court will consider at its own discretion within the framework of the analysis of the constitutionality of the provisions of the Agreement”, the ministry reminded.