Sure. The investor-state aspect is a core element of our mandate and our objective in any investment negotiation, whether it's as part of a stand-alone FIPA, a foreign investment protection and promotion agreement, or as part of the investment chapter in an FTA. This is what gives our investors recourse to impartial dispute settlement to ensure that the rights we negotiate for them in the investment agreement are enforceable. From the standpoint of our stakeholders, this is an absolutely key element of our investment negotiations.
By and large, the terms don't differ all that much, I would say, between foreign investment protection agreements and FTAs. You have a variation in the termination provisions, basically because we feel there's a higher risk with a stand-alone FIPA that it could be terminated by the other side than there is with a comprehensive FTA. In an FTA we would typically have a much shorter termination provision.
The substantive obligations tend to be similar. In the case of Korea, I can say that we have state-of-the-art obligations across the board. That's one of the features that I think is strongest in this agreement.