I thank the member for his question.
It's a very pertinent question in the context of the court's advisory opinion.
I'll give a little preamble on the advisory opinion. It is an opinion of the court that is not binding on the parties. These are questions that the UN General Assembly put to the court about Israel's practices and policies in the occupied Palestinian territories.
As you correctly pointed out, the court issued an opinion in July, and it rightly talked about the lawfulness of Israel's practices and policies in these territories. It also included a portion on the obligations of third-party states in relation to the obligations that the court believes Israel has breached through its policies and practices.
Some of the elements on which the court ruled are peremptory obligations under international law, the jus cogens. These obligations require obedience from all states, not just Israel. In this case, this means that countries like Canada must make an assessment of their implementation of these obligations.
You mentioned the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement. I'm not an expert in international trade law, but I know enough to be able to say that this treaty is designed to have a particular definition of its application over treaties. As far as Israel is concerned, it states that the treaty applies where Israel's customs laws apply. It does not refer to any particular territory. Under the Oslo Accords, this allows customs laws to be applied in the occupied territories, for example. This allows products from the occupied territories to benefit under the treaty. As you mentioned, this is a precaution taken precisely to avoid ambiguities. Is this something that is studied and reviewed by my colleagues in international trade law? Yes, it absolutely is. We have to be satisfied. The nuance in the definition of treaty application takes this into account. We felt that Canada's obligation did not begin in July, when the court issued its advisory opinion. Although it's not binding on Canada, obviously Canada has to study it. It was a measure, an approach that had already been taken by Canada in its negotiations for the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement to take into account this difficulty that is raised by the court itself.
Have I answered the question?
If not, I hope the member will ask me a supplementary question.