Mr. Gerry Liston:

The question is whether it would constitute a breach of the obligation set out by the International Court of Justice to omit services from the Bill. A separate area of international law explains when a breach occurs. It is called the law on state responsibility and is set out in articles drawn up by the International Law Commission. Article 12 of those articles states "There is a breach of an international obligation by a State when an act of that State is not in conformity with what is required of it by that obligation". The commentary of the International Law Commission goes on to state "The expression 'not in conformity with what is required of it by that obligation' ... allows for the possibility that a breach may exist even if the act of the State is only partly contrary to an international obligation incumbent upon it". Not banning all goods and services and, indeed, all investment, therefore, is only partially compliant with the obligation. Conversely, it is partially not in compliance, and therefore it would be in breach. I do not think what was said yesterday in terms of whether the Bill is compliant or would be in breach of the obligation is accurate as a matter of international law.