Thank you.
That's correct, it is by convention. This is a government-to-government agreement, but it's been frequently invoked that the United States government would therefore undertake, in effect, not to terminate early. But it was admitted during the negotiations that the United States was negotiating on behalf of the coalition. Mr. Mendenhall said that himself. Indeed, every time there was a proposal made from the Canadian side that was rejected, we were told it was because the coalition wouldn't accept it. Therefore, it's reasonable to expect that if the coalition decides to terminate, the United States government will terminate.
More fundamentally, the agreement is, on its face, illegal because it involves quotas. Quotas violate the WTO. They're not permissible. So how you would invoke international law, or before what international forum you would bring this agreement for enforcement, remains to me a very wide open question, as an international lawyer. Where do you take an international agreement--to what international forum--to have the legalities of it enforced?
So this introduction of the notion of a one-year termination available under international law appears to me to be irrelevant to this agreement.