Mr. Reuben East:

I will address the reason CETA is essential because this complements what Ms Drisdelle has said. Investors may pursue action against a state in the domestic courts or through the ICS. The ICS does not preclude an action before the domestic courts. There are, therefore, two possibilities. However, it is important to be more precise, in answer Deputy Howlin's question on dropping the ICS system. If there were no ICS or dispute settlement system to enforce the obligations under the CETA investment chapter, chapter 8, the investor would have no recourse to make a claim before the domestic courts because these are matters of international law.

Article 30.6 of CETA makes clear that there is no direct right of action for parties in the domestic courts. This is important as it means that, absent the ICS, there would be no ability to enforce the investment chapter obligations. This does not mean an investor cannot take action in the courts but this is usually in the realm of matters such as a judicial review or any rights of action already provided in the domestic system.

CETA does not limit the jurisdiction of the Irish courts in any way because it states the scope of a tribunal is such that it can only decide claims related to the substantive obligations under the chapter. Opining on domestic laws, for example, or court decisions is outside the jurisdiction of the ICS.

A specific provision in Article 8.3.1 indicates ICS tribunals cannot overturn government decisions or laws. A tribunal can consider the domestic law of a party but only as a matter of fact and must follow the prevailing interpretation given to the domestic law by domestic courts, including the Irish courts.