ABSTRACT
Like David and Goliath, the fights emerging from the NAFTA negotiations between the giant US and its weaker neighbors hardly seem fair.1 International relations theories stressing the importance of the distribution of power in determining international outcomes suggest that Goliath will win handily. Yet, like David, Canada and Mexico fared quite well in the negotiations in some economic sectors. In other sectors, Goliath prevailed with few concessions. This calls into question explanatory power of the distribution of power in international negotiations and suggests that others level of analysis needs to be examined. This is not revolutionary. Theorists have long contended that relying primarily on one level of analysis is shortsighted and adding complexity to explain international interactions is necessary. The larger question, however, is how factors at the international and domestic levels of analysis interact.
