I think there are two separate issues here. If you want to include it as part of the agreement, you need to extend the methodology to include some sort of survey of firms to identify decisions and a survey of investors to identify decisions. And then, as the methodology lays out, you need to track those firms that have made the decision because of or tied to the free trade agreement—as to what aspects of the agreement and what provisions, etc., induced them and how that's affecting their behaviour—if you are then going to seek remedy for the damages by means of a tie to the trade agreement.
That's the point about causality. If you're going to use the agreement as a way to identify problems and effect remedies, you need to have causality there.
In terms of including it, I think it would make more sense to have separate agreements with countries. If human rights are such an overriding concern, they should not be relegated to a side agreement. If the concerns are so large and so pressing, I think they should be dealt with in a more transparent and more forthright manner. Take, for example, our case in the Americas. There are countries with which we have trade agreements in this hemisphere that have more charges against them in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights than does Colombia, yet those countries do not have separate side agreements on human rights, and human rights are not discussed.
So there are several issues with this. One is the basic hypocrisy of doing it with smaller, weaker countries, and not with larger countries, where there are quantifiably identified human rights issues. The methodology in terms of proving causality is another.