 Let me add a few comments about article 38. According to point D of paragraph 1, the second subsidiary means for the determination of the rules of law are, I quote, the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations. End of quote. By this article 38 refers to the writings of international law scholars, or at least the writings of the most renowned of them. Who are they? We do not exactly know. As the court never quotes nor refers to specific writings, even if councils and judges in their opinions very often refer to scholarly works. For the rest, and as Judge Greenwood, who is currently a member of the ICJ, as Judge Greenwood used to tell his students, recalling what he was himself told, who is the most highly qualified publicist of the various nations, whoever is marking your paper. But let us be serious again. This reference to the teachings, la doctrine in French, is quite unique. You will not find many legal systems taking the writings of academics so seriously. And indeed, scholars of international law spend much of their days trying to decipher international practice, trying to put some order within the fuzziness of international law and trying to identify from the practice emerging rules. International law is also, and to a large extent, an intellectual enterprise and a construction. And it is not by chance that this MOOC exists. So ideas about what is international law, what it should be, have a bearing on its understanding and development. Let me finally turn to paragraph 2 of article 38. It says that paragraph 1, which lists the sources applicable by the court, is I quote without prejudice to the power of the court to decide a case execo et bono if the parties agree there too, end of quote. Well, this is very interesting. As a matter of principle, the court must apply existing rules of international law in order to settle the cases submitted to it. But as an exception to that principle, and only if both parties to the pending dispute specifically agree, it may decide a case on the basis of equity execo et bono. To my best knowledge, no state party to any dispute before the ICJ has ever agreed that the court renders a judgment based on its own understanding of equity and justice, rather than on the basis of pre-existing rules of international law. So if the provision has never been applied, why is it so important and interesting? Well precisely because of what it tells us about the fear of states to have to face a court deciding cases without referring to the legal principles and rules that the states themselves have taken part in creating. Paragraph 2 of article 38 stands in contrast to paragraph 1 and reinforces the nature of the sources listed in paragraph 1. On the basis of a very positivistic understanding of international law being the result of the will and consent of states, those various sources are the result of processes which somehow and ultimately are controlled by states themselves, or at least that is what states like to believe. .