remarks that, unlike the Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data by air carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (2007 PNR Agreement) , in the event of a dispute arising between the parties to the Australian Agreement there is provision for a conflict resolution mechanism, and the EU data protection authorities may exercise their existing powers to suspend data flows to protect individuals with regard to the processing of their personal data where there is a substantial likelihood that the provisions of the Agreemen ...[+++]t are being infringed;

(k) remarks that, unlike the Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data by air carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (2007 PNR Agreement), in the event of a dispute arising between the parties to the Australian Agreement there is provision for a conflict resolution mechanism, and the EU data protection authorities may exercise their existing powers to suspend data flows to protect individuals with regard to the processing of their personal data where there is a substantial likelihood that the provisions of the Agree ...[+++]ment are being infringed;

remarks that, unlike the Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data by air carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (2007 PNR Agreement) , in the event of a dispute arising between the parties to the Australian Agreement there is provision for a conflict resolution mechanism, and the EU data protection authorities may exercise their existing powers to suspend data flows to protect individuals with regard to the processing of their personal data where there is a substantial likelihood that the provisions of the Agreemen ...[+++]t are being infringed;

In the present case, there is a dispute between the parties about what is a reasonable amount of costs.

Part VIII of UNFA provides for the settlement of disputes between parties through provisions that incorporate the binding dispute settlement procedures of the LOS Convention (Articles 27 to 32) ([110]) Article 7 of UNFA calls for “compatibility” of conservation and management measures for straddling and highly migratory stocks inside and outside 200-mile zones.

So we encourage Canada to create a NAFTA dispute prevention committee of stakeholders to detect potential disputes between the parties and fractures in the agreement, then engage in government facilitation of the stakeholder committee to dissipate disputes and focus on the overarching objective of NAFTA to secure continental free trade (1855) Left to the legal processes alone, resolution of large trade disputes is very difficult.