 Good evening. We are the last panel of a very long day, so we're going to try to keep you awake. I'm Laurent Cohen Tannugi. I have the honor and the pleasure of moderating this panel. I'm an international corporate lawyer based in Paris. And I would maybe start with a word of explanation about our topic tonight, which is the weaponization of law and globalization. So many people ask me, what is this about? So of course, you can object to this title that law has always been a weapon. When you go to court, you use law against your adversary in a litigation. Also, if you take the long view of history throughout centuries, law has been used by sovereign powers to legitimize or justify even the most horrible actions. So you would say, what's new? Well, what is new in my view, and I think probably some of our panelists, is that we seem to be moving from an area from the end of World War II, in the past 70 years, where law has been a key to the building of an international world order based on the rule of law. And that has been thanks to both the United States and the European community and the European Union. We seem to be moving from that rule-based international order to a more chaotic system of international relations, where law seems to be more and more used as a pretext for arbitrary or unilateral action. And so I guess our topic is, is that so? And if true, is that evolution troublesome for, is that a new threat, a new impediment to globalization? So to address these questions, we have a panel of very distinguished members, most of them lawyers, but not all. And so I will introduce very briefly, since we have very little time and a lot to say, I will refer you to the brochure for the complete biography. But very briefly, ladies first, Antida Nohodom at the far left here, who I would describe as a rising star in public international law academia. Then Michael Muller, who had a brilliant career in the UN system, had a number of positions in the UN system. Ye Min Lee, who had a brilliant diplomatic career in Korea, in particular in the international economic and trade area, he negotiated both the EU, Korea, and US, Korea Free Trade Agreement. And then finally, Stu Eisenstadt, who you all know, who was a close advisor to President Carter, who had a great biography of him recently, and was also US ambassador to the EU. So I will maybe start by illustrating what I was just talking about, this troublesome shift from a rule-based order toward a more chaotic order, with maybe an abuse of the legal system. In my area, which is international business law and international criminal law. And of course, many of you think about the issue of the extraterritorial application of national law, and particularly of US law when we think about the weaponization of law. I happen to think that extraterritoriality as such is not an issue. In fact, I think that in a globalized economy, the extraterritorial application of US and other any national law is actually the norm. And in fact, the European Union also applies its laws extraterritorially. The only difference is that the US has a more powerful enforcement tools. And so at least in the areas where there is an international consensus, like for example, the fight against international corruption, where there is an OECD convention, the fact that the United States tend to enforce its foreign corrupt practices act, its national anti-corruption law, more vigorously abroad, doesn't shock me. When there isn't rather instead a policy split, like in the recent Iranian sanctions of the US, then it is more of a concern because there's no international consensus. But what is more troublesome, I think, and what is more recent and illustrative of the trend I was describing, which is the subject of our panel, is what I would call the geopoliticization of international business law and particular criminal law. And this geopoliticization, I think, is due to three phenomenon. First, the targeting of individuals, and particularly corporate executives, in addition to cooperation themselves. That was the trend that was started by the US enforcement authorities, but is now spreading as a result of the financial crisis. There's a criticism that the CEOs of all these banks that created so much trouble were never actually indicted or jailed. So there's a trend towards targeting the individual, exactly. The second trend, of course, in the global economy is the rise of emerging powers who do not have a rule of law tradition. I don't need to cite them. You know those I'm talking about. And then the third factor is, of course, the growing conflictuality of international relations. So if you put those three things together, you have a situation like the Huawei situation, where Huawei CFO is arrested in Vancouver by the US authorities, which provokes retaliation and then China detains two Canadian nationals who have nothing to do with this or anything else. A French banker is arrested in Russia. And maybe the Carlos Ghosn affair, even though it's not so much a political, but it's sort of corporate politics in a system that is in a criminal law system that is at odds with most Western criminal justice systems. So all of those things, all of these evolution are quite troublesome, and I think are becoming a threat to globalization. Another example would be the use of anti-corruption laws by notoriously corrupt countries who enact them and then use them as they please against either political opponents or against selectively against foreign investors. So we seem to be moving from a rule of law-based system to a system of arbitrariness and force. And so that is, I think, what we should be concerned about. So to deepen that analysis, I would like to give the floor first to Antida to maybe give us a little doctrinal approach to this phenomenon. And Antida, please, the floor is yours.