Inside Geneva: Are we throwing away international law?

Are you Swiss and planning to move abroad? Or maybe you've already taken the leap? Swiss info has a new podcast just for you. It's coming out on November 25th. It's called Adémerci-Schweetz. Or maybe that should be Adémerci la Swiss. It's available in Swiss, German and French. It covers everything you need to know about setting up your new life abroad. We speak to Swiss around the world who've already made the move and we ask experts to share their experiences. You'll find Adémerci-Schweetz wherever you get your podcasts or in our SWIP+ app. This is Inside Geneva. I'm your host, Imogen folks. And this is a production from Swiss info, the International Public Media Company of Switzerland. In today's programme. International law is like the ultimate rulebook for countries. Think of it as the world's referee. When your government is not there to uphold your rights, it's that safety net to think that there's something else out there that these other sets of rules that can help write wrongs and bring about some form of justice as well. There's a different expectation, different hope around international law. I think today we have many rules today that are much more ambitious than they used to be. Tonight the International Criminal Court is issuing arrest warrants for Israel's Prime Minister, his former Defence Minister, charging them with crimes against humanity. The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin because of his alleged involvement in abductions of children from Ukraine. You can give me all the justices saying X about Gaza, about Netanyahu. You can give me all the decision of the International Criminal Court. Show me the result. Show me when Putin comes to Alaska. Show me when Netanyahu comes to the White House. We got these laws because we made some awful mistakes and committed some terrible crimes. And what I really hope is that we don't have to reinvent all these stuff because we made the same mistakes again. I think if somebody today proposed to create an International Criminal Court, there would be laughed at. It's not the diplomatic context in which you can undertake such ventures. How much violation can there be before the treaty or the norm becomes invalid? And I think we're seeing a level of violation that is extraordinary. The way that certain leaders today are acting is not sustainable. Perhaps for a certain time, we can do away with cherry picking bits of treaties and laws that they like best, but at some point there's going to be a reaction to that. Hello and welcome to Inside Geneva. I'm Imogen folks. And today we're going to talk about international law. And before you switch off because you think it's maybe too dry, think again. International law has been in the news a lot, lately from Ukraine to Gaza, to the coast of Venezuela. And so our topic today is 2025 the year we threw away international law. To discuss this, we have here in the studio, Nico Khrish, Professor of International Law, Geneva's Graduate Institute, Kazmira Jeffert, Editor-in-Chief of Geneva Solutions. That's a daily newsletter that is essential reading for anyone working here in Geneva, in the UN, in humanitarian agencies, and our regular analyst, Daniel Warner. Welcome to you all. I'm going to start off with a really basic question, but I think it's maybe a good idea to ask all of you, what does international law actually mean to you? How would you define it? And Nico, since you were the Professor, I'm going to come to you first. Thanks Imogen. On a very basic level, international law is the compound of obligations that states have vis-à-vis one another, right? That's the basic and formal definition, I would say. But of course, that doesn't tell us very much. And probably it is more in a more ambitious formulation. It would be, in a sense, the rules the international community lives by, which kind of takes us from the formatory to more an aspirational idea that somehow international law also signifies the idea of a law-based international society, which is not something we can so easily take for granted. Kazmira, what about you? Well, I'll give us slightly less, perhaps, academic definition as a journalist. For me, I think international law really is in the auspices of the palace in Geneva. It can be quite an eluf term and obscure and kind of confined to every-dite language that diplomats use here to negotiate treaties. But I think really more than that, it's a living, breathing thing that people count on. It's, you know, when your government is not there to uphold your rights. It's that safety net that stopped gap to think that there's something else out there that these other sets of rules that can help right wrongs and bring about some form of justice as well. And that's very important. I think it's a lot of very important to people out there. Very something that protects us. Mine is very basic, anyway, two things. One from quite a long time ago, my late mother-in-law, her brother went missing over Germany. He was an RAF navigator very sadly, three weeks before the armistice was signed. But his family knew they could contact the Red Cross and that if he was a prisoner, they would be able to send him things. And they knew that immediately. That was there as something in this terrible moment. Unfortunately, he was found quite quickly that he had died. And the other thing is that somebody who worked for the Red Cross when I first started in Geneva, who had come back from the Middle East and he said, "International law is the barrier between us and our own barbarism." And that kind of struck me that there's just some things you shouldn't do in life. And unfortunately, we all still do them, but we have these laws. Danny, what about you? Well, I mean, simply, it's a question of what states or any organization or any person can do and can't do. But I often come back to Jan Launfuller's professor's statement that the law, international law, has an unfolding purpose. And the unfolding purpose is probably notions of justice. And it's unfolding, in a sense, it's not static, it's not stable, but it's always changing according to what the situation is. And certainly today, as we'll discuss, the situation is changing radically. One of the things I wanted to talk about, because things are very polarized and divisive today, especially on this topic. But it is 80 years since the end of the Second World War, and 80 years since the Nuremberg Trials. Judges from Britain, America, Russia and France assemble in Nuremberg's courthouse. The imagination sickened at the crimes laid upon the accused, now stripped of the trappings of top. The world's writ has run to Nuremberg and justice waits. Now, at that moment, Nico, you've probably studied this. There wasn't a consensus, wasn't there, there should be not just accountability for the crimes committed, but that there should be a body of law which would criminalize some of these things more than they have been up to then. Yeah, there was clearly a consensus in the international community, which, of course, did not really include the enemy states at the time, to create a body that would not simply execute the leaders of the defeated country, but instead put them on trial to make visible to the world what crimes they had actually committed, and the crime of aggression was, of course, among those. So there was a very decisive moment. At the same time, of course, that gave birth to some broader laws, the genocide convention, of course, was part of that development. The Geneva conventions, to an extent, too, that have some criminalizing elements to them, but it took quite a while after that, actually, kind of to come back to the project of international criminal law that would really single out individuals for crimes. And that's really something that we see much more than in the 1990s happening, right? After the end of the Cold War, after the consensus to some extent had dissipated during the Cold War, and then there was a possibility of coming together again in more fortunate circumstances. This wasn't, I suppose, a moment of hope, wasn't it '89 to maybe '99. What do we think? What's happened since then? What has got us to this point where we are seeing, to me, it feels like, anyway, egregious, devaluing of international law? I think there are better moments, and there are down moments. I was thinking of the Geneva conventions, the middle of the 19th century, Libre code in the United States dealing with the civil war. And after that, we have World War I and World War II. And today, we're at a moment where people states, less and less, respecting international law. Why that came about? Politicians, political scientists may answer, but the question is, is this the end of international law? Because certainly, everyone agrees that we should protect certain things, especially us. The question is, how much can we impose obligations? And how much can we punish? The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister, Joav Galant, for alleged war crimes in the Gaza Strip. We have breaking news out of the Hague in the Netherlands, the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Russia's Vladimir Putin for his alleged involvement in the unlawful deportation of children from Russia's occupied areas of Ukraine. For the ICC to succeed, it needs the support of governments, because its powers are limited. The power it has is for judges to take decisions. There are certain people, I think of Netanyahu, I think of Putin, who are under indictments, and they seem to be welcomed around the world. Can that change? Will individuals be taken, be responsible? But I think the laws are there. The question is whether they're respected and what can be done about those who violate them. I suppose if we look back over the years since 1945, we do know that it's not as if we got to the early 21st century and everybody abandoned stuff, they've been obeying for decades. That's not true. I mean, we had terrible wars in the 1960s, we had Vietnam, we had the use of chemical agents, we had the invasion of Afghanistan, we had the overthrow of a government in Chile. So it's not as if everybody was a saint. But, Kazmir, I want to come to you because there's one particular treaty. I know you're working on it at the moment, which was hailed in the 1990s as a fantastic treaty and been celebrated ever since, and that's the convention against landlines. Now, I was crossing the Plaste de Nassion last night, leaving my office, past the broken chair, which is a monument to that convention. And there were two young guys, they'd come out of the UN behind me and one of them said to the other, "Do you know why that chair has only three legs?" And the other one said, "I don't know, just some diplomatic stuff." So here's my question. Do you think, since you're the youngest here, that the younger generation is too far away from the consciousness of why we drafted these international laws? I think they might not call them international laws. They use different vocabulary, but I think that young people today are, and I wouldn't necessarily count myself as one of them since I'm a little bit older, but I'm a younger than us. I think people, I think young people really do care, they don't call it international law, but we have a sense of rights and wrong grounded within us. I'd like to believe we still have that. And so they sense when something is just inherently wrong and intuitively wrong, so and are still prepared today to protest, to stand up against these wrongs. So it might not be in that language, but I think there is a sense of of injustice. We see it in the fight for climate justice. The UN's highest court has ruled that climate change is an urgent and existential threat. The ruling came in response to a case brought by the island state of Vanuatu, the court had added that failing to protect the planet from the effects of climate change could be a violation of international law. Thousands of kilometres away from the Pacific Ocean, a clear and unanimous decision with far-ranging consequences for island peoples. The International Court of Justice's opinion that was issued this summer, that was an opinion that came from a classroom in Vanuatu and some young students who decided what can international laws do for us, recognizing that climate change is a violation of our human rights. And you saw countries, I can't remember how many countries it was, but record number of countries who spoke at that hearing, at those hearings at the end of last year, and brought attention to that. I think there are still people activating those buttons and finding creative ways to make those rules work for them, or at least maybe that's the youth in me that still hopes. I wonder though, and Danny and Nico, you tell me this as well, I do wonder whether there's quite an awareness, though, that international law is based on absolutes in some way. There is an absolute prohibition on torture, or if you've signed up to the landmine convention, there is an absolute prohibition, basically, on you using the anti-personal landmines. And yet, with the landmine convention, the argument, and we see countries withdrawing from it now, is there in the Baltics, they have borders, with Russia, is Russia, is going to use them against us, so we should be able to use them against them. A few years ago, the International Committee of the Red Cross did a survey on attitudes to torture, and it was among younger people that they qualified the absolute prohibition. They said, "If we can get useful information that might prevent an attack, we can torture people." So, I'm wondering, Nico, Danny, do we need more education? I mean, Kazmir, as well, what do you think? I'm not sure it's education. I think what's happened, Imogen, you want to see why we're in a different situation today. It's a question of threshold. When you have a treaty or a norm, there is a threshold that says, "You can't do this." Obviously, certain people states are going to violate it. And it's that level that has people saying, "This is disregarded. Why should we be interested?" Look at the people who do that and look at how many people do that. That's something I think we haven't seen. Nico, do you agree with that? Yeah, I agree with that, but I think there's also something broader going on. We've seen surveys about the rise of anti-liberal or illiberal attitudes, and especially among younger men, I think, more than women, even so. There might be a broader shift in attitudes also, kind of, that makes people turn towards softening some prohibitions. But I think there's also, there's maybe something more going on and that goes a bit to the contrast and why people are turning to say the international court of justice now. There's a different expectation, different hope around international law, I think, today. Then there was maybe, I imagine, in the '70s or '80s, we have many rules today that are much more ambitious than they used to be. Then, mine's convention is one of them. People wouldn't have hoped in the 1970s to get this off the ground. It was something that could be done in the 1990s. So, we have a set of ambitious rules. We have the International Criminal Court, things that are also way unthinkable to an extent before. Would they be thinkable now? They were thinkable in the 1990s. It's not the diplomatic context in which you can undertake such ventures, and there were kind of better circumstances at some time. So, I think that's important to see that, and since we have these ambitious laws, and to an extent maybe, that's also because that's why we see more that law is broken, just because there's more law out there that we can measure state conduct against. There might be one aspect really, and I think international laws are more in people's minds. The number of people that tuned into the reading out of the provisional measures decision of the International Court of Justice in the South Africa, Israel, CASE on Gaza. Israel is being accused of committing genocide in the UN's top court. International Court of Justice on Friday ordered Israel to do everything in its power to prevent genocide in the territory. That was tremendous. It was in the first page news all over the world, and when have you seen that about the International Court of Justice, it has never been so prominent in public media. So, I think, kind of the, since countervailing trends there, right, there's more violations probably and maybe more fundamental violations, especially of countries that you expected to abide by the laws to some extent, and at the same time, there's also more attention to that and more hope and expectations associated with the laws. And the two together, I think, make for a pretty explosive cocktail. Nick, on that to be the New York cynic, but that's what Imogen wants me to do. Show me the results. Show me when Netanyahu comes to the White House, where are the results of the decisions being made that you claim the world was waiting to hear? Well, instead, the judges are being sanctioned. We started in the United States where Donald Trump has denounced the International Criminal Court, accusing it of illegitimate and baseless actions against the U.S. and Israel. The International Criminal Court, once again, the target of the Trump administration, the U.S. State Department announced new sanctions on four ICC officials on Wednesday. I was reading a shocking account of one of these judges who can't have bank, a county can't even operate financially in Europe anymore because, and we're going to come onto that in a minute. The tech is controlled by American tech agarics, new word, everybody. And on that, I think the ICC has its annual meetings this week, where it's asking itself some of these fundamental existential questions of where it's futualised can it continue to operate next year if it's continued to be hit by sanctions and also if it's warrants prove ineffective against countries that they uphold them. So I think there are some big questions being asked at the moment on the future of the ICC and others. But I was going to add before just a small point to say that also with at the same time, the birth of all these treaties and talk of international law also gives the kind of violators of those laws of state's language to use to their advantage as well. I mean, it gives them a vocabulary to kind of justify their actions and their wrongs. And that's also dangerous in this world we live in today where everything is broadcast and communicated on different platforms. So that's also given them also powerful tool, whether it's Vladimir Putin justifying his invasion of Ukraine or the many other countless examples. I wanted to get on to particularly the situation we're in right now because 2025 has seen some pretty shocking things which seem to be we've always seen shocking things but it seems to be somehow tolerated more. The IPC report says 16 children under the age of five have died of hunger-related causes since mid-July. It is a famine. The Gaza famine. All members of the United Nations Security Council with the exception of the US have said that the famine in Gaza is manmade. We're learning new details about one of those deadly US strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean. Sources tell CNN the US military carried out a follow-up strike on September 2nd and today we're asking has the Trump administration committed war crimes amid reports that the US military killed two people clinging to record in the sea after they survived an initial air strike on their boat. When I started this job in Geneva, it wasn't long after the United States had invaded Iraq, which we know cofian and then Secretary General eventually said he felt it was an illegal invasion. And I went to the World Economic Forum and Dick Cheney, the late Dick Cheney, was vice-president and he gave a speech all about America's new doctrine and they wanted to adjust the Geneva Convention said. The audience of leaders from Europe and Latin America sat on their hands. He did not get a warm welcome. And now we see with the United States, even from here in Geneva, there's been very little open condemnation of, for example, these attacks on the boats in the Caribbean. We see now the United States siding with Russia to UN Security Council vote. And Europe is bit squashed in the middle and a bit nervous, I think. I mean, before we started, Nico, you were saying you thought the goalposts had really been moved. Yes, I think there have been moved, maybe not for everybody. Certainly, I think that your right, the Europeans are in a difficult position strategically, largely because they realize that they depend on the US to such an extent that they can be played pretty easily, right? So I think that has, of course, lost them lots of legitimacy, especially kind of around the Gaza war. In that large parts of the rest of the world kind of see them as hypocritical, in a sense, kind of only speaking out when things happen to their friends, but not when their own friends kind of commit crimes. So I think that is really a significant shift that the western world, there was always seen to be upholding those values of the international rule of law. And lecturing other people. And lecturing other people, that's right, kind of have turned away from it, or clearly have turned away whenever they don't suit them so much. So I think kind of that has shifted. I think for many others also kind of the goalposts have been moved because you cannot simply rely on law compliance anymore on so many issues. So clearly, this is going to erode the broader fabric of international law, which as Danny rightly said, right, depends on countries complying in order for there to be a sense that there is a legal system, right? There's no other enforcement of international law, typically then international public opinion and the reactions of other states. So clearly, in that sense, I think something has changed, but it has also changed to quite some extent from western centric vision of the international legal order towards a range of other states in the south and in the east, clamoring that international law should be complied with. And with good reason, really, kind of the westerners often accuse them of double standards of variety of kinds, but on many points they're right. It is the west now that is some of more blatantly often ignoring international law. And with justification being accused of double standards, you will hear this at the UN Human Rights Council, Kazmir, you must have heard this a lot that the global south is just looking at. The huge outcry over the invasion of Ukraine are justified outcry and the couple of whispers about Gaza, Danny, you wanted to come in. Yeah, two short points. First, the image and its lovely that you use the word "shocking" because it shows the conscience and it shows a certain understanding of values that not everyone shares. But my main point to come back to Nico, you're talking about the west. I mean, come on, let's talk about the United States and the role recently under Trump specifically dealing with multilateralism, dealing with liberal values, has had enormous impact negatively on international law. And there is no question, Nico, you said it's positive to some extent that the law is moving out of Eurocentric. But on the other hand, the United States with European allies has always been the leader in multilateralism since the Second World War. And without the United States, in this aspect, I think it's terribly damaging for the role of international law. And if you have a system in the United States today, which is constantly violating international law, it's very difficult to find another country or a person who's going to be Mr or the state that's going to be behind international law. And I think that has to be said. Do you think some people say we need to get on with this without the United States? Is there so far out of the game now? I mean, they're the center of the tension, but they're not center of the world. And back to your point about double standards, I think that's definitely the narrative we hear a lot here. But at the same time, I spoke to Anand Elito, who's head of the humanitarian NGO Geneva Corps that works with non-state armed groups to try and convince them to comply to international law. And he said that there wasn't one country where they're working with at the moment where the commanders don't mention Gaza as a counter-example and ask why should they respect IHL if an official army doesn't. But that doesn't mean after that that they don't then work with them to put clothes of conduct in place. I think yes, that dialogue is there, but then beyond that, I think you see developing countries still very keen to still engage with some of these mechanisms, like the Universal Periodic Review. We saw the US not turn up to its Universal Periodic Review. They didn't show up. They were a no show. If so. President, which many countries would not be proud of, but there we are. No, exactly, but I think that does not mean that other countries won't. I mean, the fear is that other countries will then say, well, why should we show up if the United States does the champion of dichotemocracy and when the fans of the UN Charter isn't, why should we? But I think you're still seeing countries very still keen to engage with some of these mechanisms. Do you think that, Nico? Yeah, I mean, I think among large part of the countries of the world, I think they are keen to continue as long as the system works reasonably well. But on the question of the US, I completely agree with Danny that the US has been a main pillar behind the multilateral system and certainly its construction, right? Without the US, we wouldn't have the UN at all. But at the same time, it has had an ambivalent relationship with multilateral institutions and treaties for a long, long time. If you look at the number of treaties European countries have signed compared to the number of treaties the US has signed, right? There's a big gulf there. And we've seen this ambivalence behind lots of negotiations and institutions. So in a sense, it's never been merely kind of a nice and happy story. And now I think many more countries say, well, okay, so now we simply cannot count on the US anymore. If we are negotiations with them, we know that they're not going to sign this treaty. We listen to them, but because they're not going to come on board anyway, we have to somehow carry on regardless and know that we have to do it without them. You've got to the landmines convention also without the US, without the great military powers in principle, which of course may have been a birth defect of the convention from the start, but it expressed a particular moral sentiment of large parts of the world to outlaw those kinds of probable weapons. And I think kind of the sense that if you want to move forward, you have to somehow you have to find the right moral compass and then you have to kind of build as large a coalition as possible around it, but it will often at least for the moment not include the US and not Russia probably. Yeah, I mean, in fact, in the last episode of Insight Geneva, we talked about COP30 and some of the people I talked to said it was actually easier not to have the United States there. Danny, you wanted to come in and then I've got one last question. Yeah, I mean, the question of the moral compass is a complicated one, Nico. Someone once told me a wonderful story. When the United States used to violate or do things international law, the President or the Secretary of State would go to the legal advisor to the State Department and say, I'm going to do this. Justify it. Now they don't even ask and that's a fundamental change, fundamental change. And I think the world looks at that and the double standard that can is that that's the double standard. Why should we do it when look what they're doing? Therefore, there's not a leader today who is the moral compass and says, no, this is totally unacceptable. We don't even have the Swiss defending the Geneva conventions as I think they ought to. So we have a lack of leadership here and I think there's something negative there, Nico, in terms of promoting international law. You said about what's changed and not asking whether we can do this or not. While I was preparing for this podcast, I was reading about this book by Juliano Daempoli, the hour of the predator. And what he's writing about, I have to be honest, I haven't read the whole thing that there's a new populist class of political predators and digital conquistadors. What a phrase. He basically is arguing that these people bonded together and we have seen that in the United States, haven't we, with the business community, the political class and the tech giants, that they are basically saying, there's a load of stuff we just don't need, like an independent judiciary and international law would fall into that. So I'm just wondering, we should offer our listeners some optimism at the end of the show. Is that what's coming and is it a bad thing? Or are we going to be able to hang on to these, I mean, these fundamental principles, which I thought they were fundamental and were sticking around? Who wants to go first? I mean, you raised the question, imagine, of the thin line between the public and the private. What I think is positive is that we're living in a world that's more and more interdependent. If a flood happens in Asia, if a starvation, famine happens in another region, we all know about it. So in that sense, the complex interdependency we're seeing means that we have to react one way or another to what's going on. Therefore, because we're more cosmopolitan, there has to be basic fundamental ways that the world, the system has an order. We're in a certain sense in anarchy today about certain things, but certain things function. And I think that interdependence will lead us out of the problems we have today to something more positive. Well, that is, that at least is positive, Kazmir. Are you going to hand that? I'm piggybacking on that because I do think that the way that certain leaders today are acting is not sustainable. And so, perhaps for a certain time, we can do a way with cherry picking bits of treaties and laws that they like best. But at some point, there's going to be a reaction to that. And at that point, we're going to have to fill that void. And it's going to be climate change, it's going to be massive natural disasters where we're forced to work together. And there's no denying that. I mean, he can deny climate only once, but there's going to be some point in why. Even the United States is going to need help from other nations. Nico, you've been waiting, you had your hand up first. Oh, so, so many things to say. And clearly, I'm not in the great mood for optimism, I have to say. You ask us to be optimistic, but how optimistic can we be, right? If over the last 15 years, Freedom House has reported a decline in democratic values across the world, kind of year after year. I think there's a serious crisis of liberal democracy, of the idea of rights, of protections, of popular participation that we have to face. And that will reflect into international law, international institutions. So, I think kind of that's something we is probably going to shape much of the law that we see. And it might not be the best law that we might imagine, right? If we come from a liberal democratic perspective. At the same time, I think, because of that interdependence, countries need to cooperate somehow. Now, I shouldn't think that just because we have interdependence countries immediately cooperate, right? There's still a large step to be made. Climate, clearly, kind of a sort of a very big problem that we're not tackling as much. But clearly, lots of countries have a need and a will to cooperate. And also a language, right? Sort of, I wasn't at a conference in China a couple of months ago. And of course, everybody was talking about as if multilateralism was the only thing that you can talk about in foreign policy. Now, however, I might take it with a grain of salt. But nevertheless, there is still much more rhetoric than you see in the US, where taking the word international law into your mouth makes sure that you're not going to be heard in the administration. So, kind of, you don't want to want to do that. I think really kind of the turn from interdependence to cooperation will come primarily from countries that are not the great powers. They can often do without others, or they think they can do without others, probably they cannot. But it takes them longer to see that. But it's smaller and middle powers, I think, kind of, that are likely to carry whatever will come next. And then hopefully we'll get the others somewhere on board. But for them, it is much more crucial to work with others in order to solve the problems they have. They simply cannot go to law. Well, I second that. I also think that there's going to have to be more cooperation of the the like-minded when it comes to these fundamental standards. I also want to leave on note of optimism, but I am worried. I am worried about this predator populist big tech that this grouping doesn't seem to have time for the law unless it suits them. And that would include international law and the basic international human rights law. I'm reminded where we started with the second world war that we got these laws because we made some awful, awful, awful mistakes and committed some terrible crimes. But let's hope not. The fact that we're even here sitting talking about it is a good sign. That brings us to the end of this edition of Inside Geneva. Thank you all very much. Danny Warner, Nico Krish, Kazmira Jeffert. Next time on Inside Geneva, just a little reminder, despite all the cuts in humanitarian funding, there are aid workers posted all over the world. Who in December, many of them will be spending their time away from their families and their friends and their homes because they are working in places like Ukraine or in South Sudan. And we're going to be hearing from three of them. So tune in on the 23rd of December for a holiday special. I'm Imogen folks, thanks for listening. A reminder you've been listening to Inside Geneva, a Swiss info production. You can subscribe to us and review us wherever you get your podcasts. Check out our previous episodes, how the international red cross unites prisoners of war with their families or why survivors of human rights violations turn to the UN in Geneva for justice. I'm Imogen folks, thanks again for listening. (gentle music)