Case:

ParkRU's Ltd $($ParkRU$\text{'}$s$)$ is a Canadian corporation with principal business activity consisting of the development and operation of parking facilities. ParkRU's wholly owns Parking Inc $($Parking$),$ which is a US subsidiary. Parking entered into an agreement with the local municipality of Tuscon, Arizona, to construct and operate carparks in the city. Parking had spent months and thousands of dollars preparing the proposal and had obtained other necessary permits from the state authorities to operate the car park. The municipality rejected Parking's first proposed project to build and operate a parkade in the city center.

The municipality advised that the project was situated in the city center and in a culturally protected area designated by the federal government. However, according to Parking, the city authorized another investor, a local company, to build parking facilities in the same location in the city center despite the federal protection designation.

Questions:

Parking brought a claim under Chapter $11$ of NAFTA alleging that the US violated a number of its NAFTA obligations and it also claimed damages. Parking likely claimed a breach of which NAFTA provisions? Why? Fully explain your answer.

Explain why the provisions and general philosophy of NAFTA are so similar to the provisions of the GATT.