For example, when we negotiated the trans-Pacific partnership agreement, we were very careful not to introduce disciplines that would contradict. In fact, in trade negotiations, usually one agreement would perhaps go further than another one, so rather than conflicting, they supplement each other. I will limit myself and not go too far in terms of providing a legal interpretation, but generally the agreement that is the most ambitious or succeeds the others in time is the one that would probably prevail.
COOL is a good illustration. We had the possibility of using either NAFTA, which was negotiated and came into force in 1992, or the World Trade Organization, implemented in 1995, to bring our concerns and to invoke the dispute. We chose to use the WTO, for a number of reasons. We had that possibility of choosing our forum.
Once you choose a forum where you want to settle your dispute, you have to stick to it. In the case of COOL, we went with the WTO, in part because we knew that if we were bringing it in the WTO, we could have other countries join the dispute as a third party if they were interested in the same legal question.