Perhaps I could ask you.... One of the discussions is with respect to some draft wording, which has been made public or at least has been discussed publicly in a preamble. I understand the argument about using national discretion in the application of obligations. It's restating the obvious in terms of the supremacy of domestic statute law over international obligations, but if it makes people feel better to restate that, that's fine.
If one of the objectives of a treaty is to help develop international standards, and you begin by saying we're prepared to work with other nations under this treaty process to develop international standards but of course none of these international standards will in any way have an impact on our domestic or national standards or national discretion, don't you find that a bit contradictory? On the one hand, a treaty should be to bring countries together and develop at least the framework. And God knows international law is far from perfect, but if it starts the process of creating international standards, do you worry that we then evacuate that within the same process?