For the purposes of Article 26, the application by a Contracting Party of a trade-related investment measure as described in Article 5(1) and (2) to an Investment of an Investor of another Contracting Party existing at the time of such application shall, subject to Article 5(3) and (4), be considered a breach of an obligation of the former Contracting Party under this Part.
Australia notes that the provisions of Articles 5 and 10(11) do not diminish its rights and obligations under the GATT, including as elaborated in the Uruguay Round Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures, particularly with respect to the list of exceptions in Article 5(3), which it considers incomplete.
Australia further notes that it would not be appropriate for dispute settlement bodies established under the Treaty to give interpretations of GATT articles III and XI in the context of disputes between parties to the GATT or between an Investor of a party to the GATT and another party to the GATT. It considers that with respect to the application of Article 10(11) between an Investor and a party to the GATT, the only issue that can be considered under Article 26 is the issue of the awards of arbitration in the event that a GATT panel or the WTO dispute settlement body first establishes that a trade-related investment measure maintained by the Contracting Party is inconsistent with its obligations under the GATT or the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures.