Mr. Eoin Bradley:

On one point, the Deputy mentioned we have a functioning judicial system and he is absolutely correct. If one examines the history of how the ISDS mechanism came about, it was because of a concern among investors that they would be going into countries that did not have a functioning judicial system and in which there almost would be the politicisation of the judicial system. This is how the ISDS mechanism came about. However, this proposal pertains to the European Union and the United States, that is, two places that have functioning, operating judicial systems and there is no problem in this regard. The issue now is some countries are seeking actively to get rid of ISDS from existing trade agreements. South Africa is one such country that has examined its bilateral investment treaties with Germany and other European countries and has sought actively to get rid of the ISDS clause within those agreements.

There is a realisation among countries not only in Africa but also in South America that it is not really worth putting ISDS into trade agreements and ultimately, a trade agreement can happen without ISDS in any event. Australia has decided that in the pursuit of its trade agreements, if possible, it will not include ISDS, so it can be done. We would argue that it can be done here as well.