We're now going to go to Mr. Sandhu for five minutes.
Before we do, I'm going to take a minute of that and pursue that line of questioning, if I could.
Investor-state provisions, I'm informed, generally had their origins in us having trade agreements or FIPAs with countries that have immature judicial systems. I think one of the reasons chapter 11 was provided in NAFTA was because of our concern over the Mexican judicial system.
I also know Australia and India now do not put investor-state provisions in their agreements. Because Japan obviously is a mature democracy with an established rule of law legal system, I'm wondering whether or not we really need an investor-state provision in an agreement with Japan.
I'll throw that out and get your comments on that before I turn it over to Mr. Sandhu.