Thank you for the question.
Maybe I'll start by reiterating the point that, under the current CUFTA agreement that came into force in 2017, neither party has brought an ISDS case forward. We don't anticipate a flurry of ISDS challenges by investors against the government as a result of a modernized agreement. What the ISDS provisions seek to accomplish is to provide investors with that protection in the event, as was mentioned in the earlier session, that a government makes an arbitrary decision to expropriate an investment. Then there will be protections in the agreement.
Also—and I wouldn't make this specifically about Ukraine—in some cases, we tend to include ISDS provisions in our foreign investment protection agreements and in our trade agreements with developing countries that don't always have the same standards that we do on the rule of law or their legal systems. In this case, it was at the request of Ukraine that we included these provisions. We're not anticipating that they will lead to a dramatic increase in challenges against states regarding investments. This agreement does build significantly on the 1994 foreign investment protection agreement.