Yes. What's significant that the tribunals give interpretations to broad language of standards in the treaties. So the tribunals interpret what a very important concept of indirect expropriation or regulatory expropriation means. They interpret what is discriminatory. They interpret what is fair and equitable treatment.
When you look at the legal interpretations arrived at by tribunals, I understand there are differences between cases and facts, but the general law should more or less remain the same from case to case, regardless of respondent state, nationality of claimant, and so on.
I teach international investment law to students. In the NAFTA chapter 11 context, it is quite striking to see that clearly state-friendly interpretations of NAFTA arise under all the key standards in claims brought against the United States by Canadian investors, whereas the more investor-friendly interpretations in existing cases have involved claims against Mexico or the United States. I can cite the ADF award on national treatment.
I will give you an example. The Glamis Gold lawsuit against the United States involved a fair and equitable treatment claim. It involved a claim--the same as the one by AbitibiBowater against Canada here--that there was a failure to live up to legitimate expectations and maintain a stable business environment. That component of fair and equitable treatment was denied as a component of article 1105 in the Glamis claim against the United States, but it has been accepted in the subsequent and very recent claim against Canada in the Chemtura case.
Chemtura was won by Canada, but the interpretation of the law is significant, because in the experience to date--and there are not that many cases--it's quite clear that the United States has enjoyed more state-friendly interpretations of the core standards than have Mexico and Canada. If you extend that to other countries, the trend is the same.