One comment on this by @SteveBakerHW: it is simply misleading/wrong on the role of the ECJ vis-a-vis the arbitration panel that will adjudicate on post-transition disputes.
This is what the pamphlet says. 
The first two, and fourth, bullet points are really run-off provisions: the ECJ will have jurisdiction over UK liabilities and obligations incurred as a matter of EU law during its membership + time-limited transition, and ongoing cases not finished as at the end of transition.
The third bullet is citizens’ rights (all agreed a while ago while Davis and Baker were both DExEU Ministers).
The last two are about NI (only - not GB) in the backstop.
But the 5th is misleading in the extreme. Arbitration under the WA is by a panel of lawyers, 2 from each side + 1 agreed chair (Art 171).
The ECJ is involved in the arbitration process only if the arbitration panel itself decides that there’s a question of EU law. (Art 174.1 and 2).
And the ECJ binds the panel only in relation to that question (Art 174.1).
So the ECJ has no role save to the extent that there is a question of EU law, when it is brought in to resolve that question (and nothing else).
So, as I argued here, when it comes to deciding if the U.K. has proposed adequate solutions to avoid a hard Irish border, the ECJ is unlikely to have a role. prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/eu-wi… And the same applies to most other questions the arbitration will have to resolve.
