 A third possible incidental proceedings is the filing of a counterclaim by the respondent under Article 80 of the rules of court. The court defines a counterclaim as being, I quote, an autonomous legal act the object of which is to submit a new claim to the court and at the same time linked to the principal claim insofar as formulated as a counterclaim, it reacts to it, end of quote. Under Article 80 of the rules, the counterclaim presented by the respondent is admissible as such, I quote, only if it comes within the jurisdiction of the court and is directly connected with the subject matter of the principal claim, end of quote. The need of a jurisdictional link is obvious as the court cannot entertain any claim absent the consent of both disputing states. The need of a direct connection between the subject matter of the principal claim and the subject matter of the counterclaim is required in order to preserve the good administration of justice and avoid that, in the course of the same proceedings, totally unrelated issues are debated. Those two conditions must be met and if they are not, the counterclaim is declared inadmissible as such and does not form part of the proceedings of the case. The counterclaim must be made in the respondent's counter-memorial on the merits, which means that it can still be submitted after the court has rejected preliminary objections. A fourth incidental proceedings relates to the possible intervention of third states because, as I mentioned earlier, the existence of every new case submitted to the court is notified and is brought to the attention of the other states bound by the statute to the UN. Those third states may intervene in the proceedings. Intervention is a technical procedural issue for very few specialists of ICJ proceedings and the case law has been rather convoluted in that regard but without going too much into details. Let me quickly cover the issue because it will help you to have a sense of how ICJ proceedings are at the same time private, like in arbitration, and distinctively public also and how a balance between these private and public aspects is somehow struck through the rules relating to intervention. Three types of interventions are possible and must be distinguished. Under the first type of intervention, the intervening state has a right to intervene in the proceedings and this possibility is envisaged under article 63 of the statute, which reads as follows. Whenever the construction of a convention to which states other than those concerned in the case our parties is in question, the registrar shall notify all such states forthwith to every state so notified has the right to intervene in the proceedings but if it uses this right the construction given by the judgment will be equally binding upon it end of quote. In the dispute between Australia and Japan about wailing in the Antarctic that was decided in 2014, New Zealand intervened in the proceedings on the basis of article 63 because it wanted to support the Australian interpretation of the international convention for the regulation of wailing to which it is also a party. The state intervening on the basis of article 63 does not present a claim to the court and does not become a party to the proceedings. It intervenes only for the purpose of presenting to the court its own views and observations about the construction that is the interpretation of the convention, the treaty which is in question in the case and to which it is also a party. And because the interpretation given by the court to the convention will not only be binding on the claimant and the respondent in the case but also on the intervening state article 63 interventions are actually rarely used. The second and the third types of interventions are envisaged by article 62 of the statute which reads as follows. Should a state consider that it has an interest of a legal nature which may be affected by the decision in the case it may submit a request to the court to be permitted to intervene. It shall be for the court to decide upon this request end of quote. Here intervention is not a right but a possibility and it is for the court to decide. And two types of interventions are possible under article 62 either the intervening state wants to present its views to the court and protect its rights by bringing them to the attention of the court or the intervening state wants to go a step further and actually attack a new case on the pending case submit a claim to the court ask the court to adjudicate upon its rights and therefore become a party to the pending case between claimant and respondent. In both cases the third state needs to establish in its application for permission to intervene that it has an interest of a legal nature which may be affected by the future decision of the court in the case and it must also set out precisely the object of its intervention. The interests of a legal nature likely to be affected by the future decision of the court does not amount to the subject matter of the dispute but needs to be examined on a case by case basis. If the intervening state wants to become a party to the case wants to attack a new case it must additionally and as provided under article 81 of the rules it must establish that there exists a basis of jurisdiction between itself and the parties to the case. In such a case also the object of the intervention must be connected to the subject matter of the principal claim. As I mentioned earlier the case law of the court on matters of intervention has been convoluted and it has evolved throughout the years to make those conditions finally clear. However the court has been rather restrictive when assessing the existence of a legal interest that may be affected by its future decision or the other conditions for intervention so that very few authorizations to intervene have been granted. And this bears witness to the fact that the court considers itself very much as an arbitral organ in the business of settling disputes rather than as a kind of constitutional court of the world. The last incidental proceedings to report upon is discontinuance. It is regulated under article 88 and 89 of the rules. And there is no need to say much about discontinuance except that about a third of cases are discontinued because parties manage in the course of the proceedings to find an agreed settlement between them. And this may sound a huge portion and a failure of adjudication but let me submit to you that discontinuance of a case should be seen as a success for the ICJ itself. It is indeed because the court exists that it has been duly seized of a dispute and that states somehow fear an adverse judgment that they finally find a way to accommodate their respective claims and agree on a settlement. And remember the purpose of all those proceedings is to help states overcome their differences and settle their disputes. So bringing a case to the court puts pressure on the respondent state. It also brings the parties closer together because they are forced to phrase their claims in the professional language of international law to exchange legal rather than political arguments about their claims. Also the ICJ proceedings will provide for some cooling off period, changing the pace of politics etc. All those elements put together will eventually facilitate direct negotiations between the parties and those negotiations may of course continue while the case is spending at the court. So sometimes, or actually quite often, the presence of a judge rather than its decisions help to settle international disputes.