 So I think I'd like to take question from the audience right away because the time is short and we've covered a lot of ground so Let's start here Mike Thank you, my name is pay Emerson Entrepreneur in education and communication come in from Sweden. I Have lots of interest to Stuart Eisenstadt about how the law can be used And I want to put the question to you about United States Because we have a number of issues in Europe when it comes to Corruption and money laundering in European companies and even if those companies only have 0.1% activity in the US It's being handled by youth authorities youth authorities outsource the work to law firms and then European firms have to pay millions or billions of US dollars and I don't think they should of course I should pay when they've done mistakes But what I can't understand is why we haven't got the system within European community to handle this Why should it be you as jurisdiction that controls the world in This area Thank you. Maybe we're gonna take two or three questions and then we'll we'll respond. Yes the lady out there No Here I think there was a question We'll take three questions. Please be brief My question is too much a stat Daniel Hattie from I sound far as Institute at the American University of Beirut. You spoke about the Palestinian and their use of lawfare What other option do they have when the Israeli? Slowly eat up their land and build settlement and there is no international pressure To compel Israel for the two-state solution. What other option do the Palestinians have? And I also want to tell you that while Barack was negotiating with Arafat He was bragging that he built settlements more than any other Prime Minister. Thank you. Thank you third question here And then we'll we'll respond Hi, I'm Daniel check. I'm a former Israeli diplomat I would love to hear someone expand a little bit about a notion that was mentioned at the beginning of the Universal jurisdiction There is of course the one sort which is within the international bodies that have been Created and regulated through agreements like the ICC, but there are also individual states which have acquired different levels of Universal jurisdiction which creates a somewhat uncertain and unclear and fluid legal landscape Especially in Europe So I wonder if somebody would like to say what what they think this is worth and is is it still a useful tool when there are Recognized international bodies that have to deal with it Okay, thank you. We'll take that maybe if we start with the last question and Tida. Do you want to answer this professor? Um Universal jurisdiction I think for some asserts. It's a low for a problem because effectively you have individual states who use the universal jurisdiction to fight against specific individual For Pinochet, for example, you have action against Tony Blair as well from Belgium and so on and for Brangel and so on I don't think so. I think that universal jurisdiction. It's it's not a law fair argument because it's based on Universal Convention So it's an obligation for the state who are party to this convention to respect their obligation and If this convention this intention convention mentioned the universal jurisdiction, they have to Respect this convention obligation. So I don't think it's law fair. It's a legitimate use of law and You have this obligation if you are a party of of this convention, so I'm not sure it's Yeah local local, but most of the time you have You have an obligation based on international convention Even if you if you act as an individual state According to your national law, you have an international you can have an international obligation to use Universal jurisdiction. That's why for me it's It's not law fair because it doesn't use to destabilize the other parts. It's not it's only a conventional obligation Yeah, I think the problem is to draw the limit between the legitimate and the illegitimate use of law between the legal and the illegal use of law Stuart's Palestinian law fair and extra territory I'll answer all three on the last point It is the use of law fair. It's an inappropriate use of law fair The Dutch the British the Belgium's use it as a way of asserting jurisdiction over actors who aren't their citizens and Who they say have committed war crimes? Including a private corporation that I happen to represent in the Netherlands who had a leased business with construction equipment that was used in the West Bank and he was arrested and He spent three or four years trying to avoid it now with respect to the Palestinians in the question the first question on the financial situation I understand exactly your Point on the Palestinians Let me point out if I may and I've been engaged in these negotiations for a very long time in many administrations At Camp David to Under Clinton Prime Minister Barack offered 95% of the West Bank East Jerusalem is a capital of a new Palestinian state 50,000 refugees coming back permanently to Israel Arafat who I had negotiated with just two weeks before and who told me don't have President Clinton invite me to Camp David because I'm not willing to make the compromises he wants They couldn't give up the law of their so-called right of return a Several years later Prime Minister Olmer at 96% of the West Bank East Jerusalem was a capital 50,000 refugees a boss Turned it down and by the way Arafat created the second at the Fata when he turned this down There's no question, but that we have a government in Israel that is not predisposed to say the least to these kinds of negotiations, but if The Palestinians that had a Martin Luther King if they had had someone who was willing in a non-violent way to say Everything is on the table. We are willing to accept as Oslo They did a Jewish state. We want our state and we're willing to negotiate as we did not do In Camp David to and In Olmer's time, we would have a completely different situation It would turn the tables and there wouldn't be a need they use law fair because they're not willing in the end To make the final decision that they're not going to have a million and a half refugees coming back to Haifa and to Tel Aviv With respect to the financial situation The answer is in one word the dollar. I mean the dollar is the king You can't do business without the dollar the euro is not a comparison now having said that I have to conclude because I'm not a defender of all the things we've done with the war on terror Until the US Supreme Court said we couldn't do it. We had extra judicial after 9-11 assassinations and abductions We created in Guantanamo a situation in which to avoid US law we use torture in order to extract confessions Trying to come into a whole saying well, they're not a US court the Supreme Court turned that down we have a president and My colleague from South Korea who actually served together in Brussels nailed it right on the trade issue But let me go beyond that. How can we have Michael an international rule of order when we have a president who has withdrawn from agreements Reached by his predecessors which never been done before the Paris Accord The JCPOA nuclear agreement the trans specific partnership with 12 countries The you know all of these to the INF treaty with Russia all of these things have been Unilaterally withdrawn from I mean you talk about governance my goodness. How can we urge? Any kind of rule of law on other countries when we abrogate agreements that previous presidents had reached in good faith? I'll close with one example Jimmy Carter negotiated the salt to nuclear agreement It was never ratified by the Senate for reasons which I mentioned in my book It's not relevant here Reagan took over polar opposite ideology He and the Soviets Abided by salt to as if it had been ratified till the last day It was due to expire because he respected what his predecessor had done Before taking three questions on this side of the room I'd like just to answer your question a little more specifically because why aren't the European wise in European doing the job? Because until very recently Europeans did nothing on anti-corruption in France Brides were tax deductible until the OECD convention went into force in 2000 It's only two years ago that we've got a law that the UK also acted So it's just starting and it's a good thing But until now they left the floor open to to the US which has been the anti-corruption Policemen of the wealth of things are changing but that's mainly the reason So there's one question here two questions second question here. Go ahead So my question is addressed to Madame Antida The President Bush After the attacks on September 11th I think he treated Iraq and Afghanistan The state of Waiyou. Can we consider that as a law firm? He still loves Hello, Nadia Moti, University Mohammed V professor I'm not a lawyer, but I'm very curious to know how can the law prevail if the law is here to protect minorities to protect certain issues worldwide and You lawyers cannot do something to do what we call the firewalls for computers How can the law prevails and make something like good for the new humanity? Thank you Okay, a third question on either side there Thank you so much. My name is Joseph Mila. I'm an academic from France My question is to follow the issue that was raised at the previous panel concerning the weaponization of dollar We heard from the gentleman from Russia that dollar the dollar as a currency is considered as a common international public good and at the same time the doctrine of the Trump administration Was to state when it comes to the sanctions against Iran that the dollar was a national currency So nobody is allowed or authorized to use the dollar in order to go not to abide By the sanctions that have been put by the administration. My question is very simple and it comes to the legal side of it I mean do you consider from the legal point of view? It's if this is not a loafer. What could it be? But from the Legal point of view is that legal to consider that your currency which is the universal currency as I might say or the word Currency is at the same time a national currency and that you could put your low and make your low prevail on not the international Legislation, I don't know if there is an illustration, but it is Geopartizing the whole trade system Thank you so much. Okay. So until I think the maybe the certainly the first question You I think it's not a loafer again because I would like to have a more strict definition of the offer because the state of Wayou is not a legal argument. It's a political qualification that aims to stigmatize the state and to justify Eventually the adoption of sanctions but there is no legal argument in the qualification of the state of wayou Or for me the loafer is really the use of the right and legal weapons legal instruments to destabilize the adverse part I First of all when you asked about lawyers, I mean if the world has to depend on lawyers to solve our problems We're certainly in that great shape But let me talk about the dollar because it's obviously an erratic issue a number of people have asked about it I see mr. Trichet here who's done so much European central bank to create a Vibable euro and I was an ambassador to the EU and the Clinton administration when the euro was just about to get started So We have done things during the Clinton administration that were multilateral and did not did not abuse our power for example We created and it still exists a Global system for dealing with anti-money loans. We had a common agreement Know your customer all of these things were agreed to we even listed a number of countries Included Israel and Russia and they can send it did not meet those standards second If you want a great example of The dollar versus the euro look at what's happened since the US unilaterally pulled out of the JCPOA The European Union and rightly so Wanted to keep Iran in that agreement they tried to come up with alternative financing mechanisms So that there could be trade with Iran and Iran would get some of the benefits of The JCPOA in return for having given up two-thirds of their centrifuges their heavy water system 24-7 IEA inspection and the like and it didn't work and it didn't work because any multinational company Even a Europe-based company Has to do business with the United States. It's the biggest market and if the US and I wish we hadn't done it Pulled out and said we're gonna sanction you if you do business with Iran Europe was powerless to counteract that even though it's a 500 million people market larger than ours we have 325 million but the euro with all the advances. It's made under mr. Trichet and Under his successor who you saved it? Draghi it's not a global currency. It's not an alternative currency and So there's no country in the no company in the world If given the choice between doing business with Iran and doing business with the US, it's a no-brainer and That's why this agreement is falling apart. I mean you talk about global governance my god We had a situation. It wasn't perfect. It was not a perfect agreement. There were sunset problems and so forth Okay, we could have built on that now in retaliation Iran is restarting its centrifuges It's talking about going back to its heavy-water plant. It's enriching uranium up to a dangerous level when it was at a very low level It's a catastrophe in terms of any kind of international governance, but It's undergirded by the strength of the dollar by the strength of the dollar and So Trump can get away with it Because no company again is going to choose to do business with Iran and hope that the EU's alternative finance mechanism works. It won't it's a shame, but that's the reality Technical question there there's often a misconception that the whole the sole Ground for jurisdiction is the use of the dollar or the US financial system But most of the time there are other Grounds for jurisdiction if you take the famous BNP case if you have a US banking license Whether you use the dollar or the euro you're subject to US jurisdiction. That's that's the legal answer So it's not all about the dollar there are other of course as I said in the currents Iranian section There's a big split of foreign policy between Europe and the United States which makes the sanction very You know unacceptable, but in areas where there's a common ground The the legal ground are not only about the use of the dollar, but people often forget that Suggesting the economic power of the US Against South Korea was used by this administration to get a better deal for agriculture Okay, it was used against Mexico and against Canada our two great neighbors to get a better deal on NAFTA It's been used against China To our detriment as well, but to get a better deal and there'll be some deal current Trump Trump called the best deal ever It won't be but okay, so the the power of the US economy Has to be used very delicately, but it's when it's used with a bludgeon. Which is what's being used now it does produce some results, but with terrible after effects and aftershocks that will be years and and Recreating going back to a rule space. I think I think I'll put Richard a question or comment Thank you very much indeed. No, I only wanted to echo what you just said both both of you I think when I ask the major European multinationals It is not because they are bound to have transaction with the Iran in dollars They could do that in other currency and of course the euro exists and as matter of global transactions The rapport de force if I may is not dramatic I mean it's 45 percent for the dollar 34 for the euro something like that the problem is as you said they have interest other interest in the US and if they don't respect the Legislation and the sanctions then they are punished not because they are utilizing the dollar But because they have a lot of course of trade or interest or FDI in the United States And that explains in my observation why immediately the major European multinationals said no forget about it about us And so the the special purpose vehicle was not utilized at least by them Which was some kind of of nice border utilizing the euro But again the main problem is that legislation in the US it seems to me is perceived by the multinational is Really really overwhelmingly fretting I mean the use of secondary sanctions I'll give you a perfect example of how two administrations can differ So when I was under Secretary of State in the Clinton administration and negotiated with the European Union on the Iran Libya sanctions act Which was a secondary sanction That is to say not against US companies alone But against European companies who were doing business with Iran or under Helmsburton doing business with Cuba It was perfectly legal under European law and not under ours And we tried to enforce it with secondary sanctions But I negotiated waivers in both cases with the European companies So we didn't have to actually use those sanctions and we got in return things like a Commitment in terms of investment in Cuba. Okay, you can invest but do more to promote democracy and reach out to democratic groups Okay, you can invest in Iran, but don't do dual-use products So I mean there are ways to handle these secondary sanctions in sensible ways But when we have a situation as we have today where there's no limits then you really get a very very Significant problem in the whole global governance. So we're gonna take one or two last questions Jean-Claude Ruffin on just I was for many years a French banker in the United States and then I became an American banker in Europe So I've come across many of the situation that you were talking about And in the case of BNP One thing that people don't always understand BNP was worn by the Department of Facial Services in New York Not the Fed, not the administration, the Department of Financial Services, which is under the governor of the state of New York, Andrew Cuomo Was warned that they were doing transaction that were not confirmed to US legislation It was done out of Paribas, BNP Paribas in Switzerland So they went to Switzerland and told them don't do this transaction They are not confirmed to what they did they continue doing this transaction and Effectively that was a payment that was for Sudan or export to Sudan and that that was done using two banks BNP and another bank that were not American banks and To make sure that they didn't go through the they thought they wouldn't go through the financial system in the US They used the BNP branch in New York to clear the transaction As you know if you make a dollar payment every dollar payment Clears by 8 p.m. New York Times in New York through the Fed system So these transactions were in the US financial system Regardless of the way they were structured they ended up being in the US financial system and clear to the Fed and that's why the Fed imposed And the sanction the financial sanction was nine billion dollars as you know One third of it went to the Department of Justice One third went to the Department of Financial Services and one third went to the Fed So I agree. Let me this is really an important point. Let me just make It's really important to understand this Whatever one thinks about the JCPOA the nuclear deal with Iran and again, it's imperfect It's much better than the alternative or whatever one thinks about it. It is Unmistakable that the reason Iran came back to the negotiating table and agreed to the JCPOA Was not because of our unilateral sanctions It was because we got our allies in Europe To join with us who are also concerned about Iran's nuclear and what did they do? Europe gave up 16% of all of its energy imports. It stopped importing all the oil from Iran It agreed on the Swiss system in Brussels that they wouldn't clear transactions They agreed with us to sanction the central bank of Iran Mr. Trichet the central bank of Iran if if we had done that alone it wouldn't have worked So here we pull out of an agreement that the European Union sweated bullets to help us get and Now they're trying desperately to hang on to it and don't have the financial wherewithal to do it It's really a tragedy and it's not a way to treat your allies who sacrificed for us You know the president Trump just said when we when you're talking about unilateral actions when we decided we were getting out of Syria and Turkey comes in and He said about the Kurds who lost 20,000 men fighting with us against ISIS. Where were they in Normandy? Yeah, on my done a instruction to clor le débat Je crois que notre hôte du dîner est ponctuel comme la rappelée Thierry Montbrayal ce matin donc je vous remercie tous de de vos interventions vos questions