1 00:00:00,090 --> 00:00:10,570 So I have been. Working on this question about how international is the International Court of Justice? 2 00:00:10,570 --> 00:00:18,520 And the reason I was super interested in this question is that I was reading The Late Justice Christopher, 3 00:00:18,520 --> 00:00:25,240 where amongst trees gracious lecture at the American Society of International Law a couple of years ago. 4 00:00:25,240 --> 00:00:32,220 And I came across this sentence that is up on the slate and I hope we can all see the slide. 5 00:00:32,220 --> 00:00:42,610 And it really sort of got me thinking about the subject of what I be talking to you this afternoon, your time. 6 00:00:42,610 --> 00:00:47,530 And it's about the representation in cases before the International Court of Justice. 7 00:00:47,530 --> 00:00:54,940 You know, who are the lawyers who appear for developing countries for. 8 00:00:54,940 --> 00:01:00,460 For what? In this presentation, I will call the nun or UCD countries. 9 00:01:00,460 --> 00:01:10,270 So the outline of my presentation is is I will tell you what I did after I really got intrigued after reading Justice, 10 00:01:10,270 --> 00:01:16,720 where a man trees gracious lecture had actually listened to this gracious lecture. 11 00:01:16,720 --> 00:01:25,470 But at the time when I listened to him, when he gave the gracious lecture and the response, great response by Professor Nathaniel Bumb. 12 00:01:25,470 --> 00:01:33,700 And this particular part of his lecture didn't stick in my mind until I read his lecture again. 13 00:01:33,700 --> 00:01:47,820 So what I did over several months with a very big group of students is to undertake an empirical study that whose results I will be presenting today. 14 00:01:47,820 --> 00:01:53,200 And and then tell you what some of my takeaways are. 15 00:01:53,200 --> 00:01:58,570 I do want to make any strong conclusions yet, because this is a project that is ongoing. 16 00:01:58,570 --> 00:02:04,120 I have tons of data. I have tons of tables. I'll not bore you with all of it, 17 00:02:04,120 --> 00:02:12,910 except that I will sort of say some of the things that are really intriguing me at the moment as I continue to develop that project. 18 00:02:12,910 --> 00:02:22,750 So just this where a mentor is a gracious lecture cited this study published in the Michigan General International 19 00:02:22,750 --> 00:02:33,880 Law in 2001 that had examined the very question that sort of led me to my own empirical study in the time frame, 20 00:02:33,880 --> 00:02:40,210 nineteen forty eight to ninety eight about who it was that represented non Western countries. 21 00:02:40,210 --> 00:02:43,630 So I'm going to be using non Western countries, developing countries. Now, 22 00:02:43,630 --> 00:02:51,280 do you see these countries all sort of roughly to mean the same thing and concluded that there was what 23 00:02:51,280 --> 00:02:56,740 they called a Western monopoly of international legal practise at the International Court of Justice? 24 00:02:56,740 --> 00:03:04,000 And they attributed this lack of non Western legal representation for non 25 00:03:04,000 --> 00:03:10,930 Western countries in the ICJ to the lack of expertise in non Western countries. 26 00:03:10,930 --> 00:03:23,500 A subsequent study by Coumarin Rose Kumar, who had been had sort of been a clerk at the court, 27 00:03:23,500 --> 00:03:27,940 came roughly to the same conclusions using a different time frame. 28 00:03:27,940 --> 00:03:31,870 Ninety nine to 2012. And for them, 29 00:03:31,870 --> 00:03:38,770 their primary question was how the backgrounds of the individuals that appeared before the 30 00:03:38,770 --> 00:03:48,730 court seemed to influence the development of public international law by the court in. 31 00:03:48,730 --> 00:04:01,090 In my own study, I replicate a lot of the data that these two prior studies came up with. 32 00:04:01,090 --> 00:04:10,630 But I also specifically sought to establish the names of the law funds that appeared most frequently before the court. 33 00:04:10,630 --> 00:04:17,800 And I was very interested in whether there was some non Western law firm, some Nunnally City law firms that appeared before the court. 34 00:04:17,800 --> 00:04:27,980 I was also very interested in naming the members of the most frequent council that appeared before the court. 35 00:04:27,980 --> 00:04:38,660 The prior studies had tried to do that, but not as systematically as I tried to do in my own study. 36 00:04:38,660 --> 00:04:44,500 And I also was very interested in measuring the extent to which when the won 37 00:04:44,500 --> 00:04:53,260 nationals of NAANU ACP countries in the legal teams representing Nuño ECD countries, 38 00:04:53,260 --> 00:05:02,010 how much of the time before the court this nun, this Nationals of the Nun or ECD teams? 39 00:05:02,010 --> 00:05:08,580 Spent presenting the legal arguments up, as opposed to merely providing the geographical background, 40 00:05:08,580 --> 00:05:19,340 the history or some other non-legal questions often, usually at the beginning of the oral hearings before the court. 41 00:05:19,340 --> 00:05:29,190 So as I was very interested in sort of gathering as detailed information on this as as possible with regard to the national teams, 42 00:05:29,190 --> 00:05:35,430 I focussed only on the agents that counsel, the advocates, the legal experts, the various combinations of these. 43 00:05:35,430 --> 00:05:40,670 So this doesn't include the secretaries, the witnesses that steady of assistance. 44 00:05:40,670 --> 00:05:47,700 You know, if you've been to The Hague at an aura hearing, you know, there's a whole coterie of people that appear there, 45 00:05:47,700 --> 00:05:56,880 including ambassadors and and diplomatic types on behalf of their countries. 46 00:05:56,880 --> 00:06:03,540 So my period was nineteen ninety eight to two thousand nineteen. 47 00:06:03,540 --> 00:06:10,230 And I looked at all the contentious cases that the court decided in that period. 48 00:06:10,230 --> 00:06:20,790 And based on sort of just the bean counting, there were fifty five applicants and fifty five respondent countries. 49 00:06:20,790 --> 00:06:25,200 I counted the intervening countries, eight of them separately. 50 00:06:25,200 --> 00:06:35,760 Most of what I would be talking about with you relates to the fifty five applicants and fifty five respondent countries, not intervening countries. 51 00:06:35,760 --> 00:06:40,920 I have data for that, but my dataset is a little too large for it, 52 00:06:40,920 --> 00:06:49,560 for this presentation to include every element of the data that I that I that I have. 53 00:06:49,560 --> 00:07:05,790 So after identifying these cases, then I, with my research assistants, tried to figure out who the legal teams were representing each country. 54 00:07:05,790 --> 00:07:09,600 I mean, this is not data that is collected systematically. 55 00:07:09,600 --> 00:07:20,760 So it required actually perusing the pages of the oral proceedings, which are published by the court. 56 00:07:20,760 --> 00:07:30,420 The other major task was to figure out the nationalities of the legal teams on either side. 57 00:07:30,420 --> 00:07:34,630 I can tell you that this is an ongoing exercise. 58 00:07:34,630 --> 00:07:44,340 You know, I've been trying to complete this with with as much accuracy as I can. 59 00:07:44,340 --> 00:07:50,700 It's not easy because this kind of information is especially on nationalities. 60 00:07:50,700 --> 00:07:56,610 It's not information that is disclosed publicly. It's mostly private information. 61 00:07:56,610 --> 00:07:59,760 So there are some instances in which inferences were made. 62 00:07:59,760 --> 00:08:09,930 But I can say with certainty that we were able to identify where the liquid, the individuals in the legal teams were located, 63 00:08:09,930 --> 00:08:16,620 whether they were located in a non always city country or in an oil city country. 64 00:08:16,620 --> 00:08:21,170 So the exercise in terms of how the study was taken. 65 00:08:21,170 --> 00:08:32,940 Like I said, is sort of to look at the oral proceedings as sort of the point of departure and essentially counting the 66 00:08:32,940 --> 00:08:46,310 pages to establish the share of each member of the legal team's contribution to the oral proceedings. 67 00:08:46,310 --> 00:08:54,390 You know how long each of these members of the legal team held the floor during the oral proceedings? 68 00:08:54,390 --> 00:08:59,550 The two previous studies emphasised the oral proceedings are a really important part 69 00:08:59,550 --> 00:09:04,380 of the cases before the court because they often highlight the most significant 70 00:09:04,380 --> 00:09:12,120 points of controversy and and therefore they may be a good proxy for the level 71 00:09:12,120 --> 00:09:19,050 of participation in terms of legal expertise amongst the members of the court. 72 00:09:19,050 --> 00:09:37,680 So in terms of the next point about trying to determine the share of each member of a legal team aid on the applicant side or the respondent side, 73 00:09:37,680 --> 00:09:42,060 how much time they held on the floor of the court? 74 00:09:42,060 --> 00:09:58,170 I used to 60 percent as a benchmark for trying to figure out the sort of level of participation by each member of of a legal team and each legal team. 75 00:09:58,170 --> 00:10:03,900 Of course, as I have implied. Crisis largely of nationals. 76 00:10:03,900 --> 00:10:10,990 Eight of the applicant or the respondent and non nationals and. 77 00:10:10,990 --> 00:10:18,490 The reason that I used the 60 percent benchmark, I could have used the 50 plus one percent to establish whether, for example, 78 00:10:18,490 --> 00:10:29,380 the non nationals had the largest share or the lesser share in terms of how long they held the floor of the court during the all of the proceedings. 79 00:10:29,380 --> 00:10:33,580 It didn't make a difference whether it was 60 percent or 50 plus one percent. 80 00:10:33,580 --> 00:10:35,560 The McArthur's that he used 60 percent. 81 00:10:35,560 --> 00:10:43,110 And I sort of just stayed with the 60 percent because it didn't make a huge difference in terms of the results. 82 00:10:43,110 --> 00:10:48,550 And and so I was also interested to see, of course, 83 00:10:48,550 --> 00:10:58,150 whether there were any non OPEC countries that that held the floor the entire time where their nationals held the floor the entire time. 84 00:10:58,150 --> 00:11:04,290 So that's how I've organised my my sort of my my results. 85 00:11:04,290 --> 00:11:16,340 Just to emphasise again, this distinction that I'm drawing between Oys, D.N.A., ECD countries. 86 00:11:16,340 --> 00:11:22,050 You know, this is really what I think is my proxy for Western buses, none Western. 87 00:11:22,050 --> 00:11:25,320 It's not an exact sort of proxy. 88 00:11:25,320 --> 00:11:36,510 As we know, sort of this category of the OCD does have some countries that may be considered to be developing countries or non Western countries. 89 00:11:36,510 --> 00:11:39,750 But in any event, it's the proxy that I used. 90 00:11:39,750 --> 00:11:45,900 And perhaps we can have a discussion as to whether this is a good proxy or not or whether the results actually would change. 91 00:11:45,900 --> 00:11:51,540 You know, I think there's quite some random randomness in the categories. 92 00:11:51,540 --> 00:11:56,220 In any event, First World and Third World, as some of you may know, 93 00:11:56,220 --> 00:12:01,980 I think of the Third World as an epistemic location and not necessarily a geographical location, but for these purposes. 94 00:12:01,980 --> 00:12:06,510 I had to have some proxy for sort of making this distinction. 95 00:12:06,510 --> 00:12:17,540 And this is the the one that I stayed with. Of the 55 applicant states in my dataset, forty nine one none. 96 00:12:17,540 --> 00:12:24,410 Or you see these countries. And of the 55 respondents, 29 are none. 97 00:12:24,410 --> 00:12:29,270 We see the countries, which means clearly that or is none, 98 00:12:29,270 --> 00:12:35,360 or ACP countries or developing countries are the major market composing of the 99 00:12:35,360 --> 00:12:40,400 legal teams appearing in proceedings before the International Court of Justice. 100 00:12:40,400 --> 00:12:42,680 They are really sort of the players. 101 00:12:42,680 --> 00:12:51,190 If you're a lawyer seeking to represent one of these countries, you would be looking to because they're the ones that appear more frequently than oil. 102 00:12:51,190 --> 00:13:00,440 Always see these countries before the International Court of Justice. So to present the results, 103 00:13:00,440 --> 00:13:08,980 known a little more detail in terms of proportional representation on the legal teams representing their country at the ICJ. 104 00:13:08,980 --> 00:13:15,050 None. Or you see, the Nationals were in the minority more often than their were in the majority. 105 00:13:15,050 --> 00:13:21,370 So. Across both the applicant and the respondent states, 106 00:13:21,370 --> 00:13:29,360 Nunnally City nationals were in the minority overall for the applicants of the forty nine Dunaway's the country's 34, 107 00:13:29,360 --> 00:13:34,970 had less than 60 percent of their nationals on the team. 108 00:13:34,970 --> 00:13:43,370 And for the respondents, twenty nine of the Nano ACP countries that had less than six percent of their nationals on their legal 109 00:13:43,370 --> 00:13:55,640 team are some standout countries like Peru and India had a majority of their nationals on their own. 110 00:13:55,640 --> 00:14:09,680 They are on their legal teams. So there are exceptions, which seems sort of an important point for me, too, in my ongoing work. 111 00:14:09,680 --> 00:14:19,790 Find out whether why it is that India and Peru have a standout relative to the rest of the OCD countries. 112 00:14:19,790 --> 00:14:21,200 And we can talk about that. 113 00:14:21,200 --> 00:14:31,610 Maybe some people may have some good ideas in terms of why that might be the case in terms of or a presentation before the court. 114 00:14:31,610 --> 00:14:40,850 The results are very similar to the results with regard to the composition of the legal teams. 115 00:14:40,850 --> 00:14:45,380 None always see the Nationals performed underwhelming. 116 00:14:45,380 --> 00:14:56,510 As this slide shows, especially by second bullet point, the total number of cases where not OCD nationals presented 75 to 100 percent of the kids, 117 00:14:56,510 --> 00:15:02,750 while only five or only four percent of my public dataset. 118 00:15:02,750 --> 00:15:17,700 So. The other point to note is that I didn't include the statistics or the data here is that most of the nano ECD lawyers council 119 00:15:17,700 --> 00:15:27,960 agents were on their feet when presenting the history of the case or the geographical context of which was a boundary dispute. 120 00:15:27,960 --> 00:15:38,850 They were not on their feet when the legal questions, the most controversial legal questions between the parties were being discussed. 121 00:15:38,850 --> 00:15:47,710 So who is this? Was it there was sort of presenting the the the legal arguments. 122 00:15:47,710 --> 00:16:00,750 Is gonna be, of course, the next question. And just for context, there is like a note in my third bullet point, there are massive gender imbalance. 123 00:16:00,750 --> 00:16:09,510 Only two hundred and thirty female lawyers as opposed to eight hundred and nineteen male lawyers appeared before the court. 124 00:16:09,510 --> 00:16:17,940 In my dataset, I'm still trying to break it down in terms of of whether of the numbers, 125 00:16:17,940 --> 00:16:31,130 in terms of the female lawyers who actually were on their feet in the various in the various cases only for naanu ECD law firms. 126 00:16:31,130 --> 00:16:36,630 What given instructions by Nano ECD state. So there's a question there regarding, you know, do this. 127 00:16:36,630 --> 00:16:52,300 Not always see these countries. Figure that they might win this case by appointing an OCD law firm as opposed to a law firm in a nano OCD country. 128 00:16:52,300 --> 00:17:00,990 You know, it is a question of the demand. You know, whether part of the explanation for this is on the demand side. 129 00:17:00,990 --> 00:17:10,910 That's a question to sort of think about. So who are like I said, you know, who are this elite ICJ bar? 130 00:17:10,910 --> 00:17:16,710 And here I just sort of putting out the ICJ bar with those with only five cases. 131 00:17:16,710 --> 00:17:20,450 I have a list of all of them, including those with only one case. 132 00:17:20,450 --> 00:17:33,530 But these are the leading ones. And you can see at the very top is an employer who has 26 in my dataset, 26 cases and all the way down. 133 00:17:33,530 --> 00:17:40,340 These are all names that we all know very well in our discipline. 134 00:17:40,340 --> 00:17:55,790 I don't think there are any surprises here. But he also confirms the studies that I mentioned before that noted the dominance of UK. 135 00:17:55,790 --> 00:18:07,220 I mean, European based academics or practitioners as opposed to those from the United States, for example, 136 00:18:07,220 --> 00:18:23,140 clearly in sort of these sort of high frequency legal counsel, none from the nano ECD countries. 137 00:18:23,140 --> 00:18:29,590 Law firms and I use law firms loosely because some of this don't define themselves as law firms in the UK. 138 00:18:29,590 --> 00:18:33,580 I think they define themselves in all sorts of ways. So I'm not entering into that debate. 139 00:18:33,580 --> 00:18:39,820 Perhaps you guys can give me better advice. Don't get into trouble by defining some of this as as law funds. 140 00:18:39,820 --> 00:18:48,280 It's complicated. But again, you can see it's it's the same usual suspects. 141 00:18:48,280 --> 00:19:02,280 There are no surprises here. Again, it's some of the leading global funds that are appearing more frequently than law firms from elsewhere. 142 00:19:02,280 --> 00:19:09,640 Again, the United Kingdom dominates the appearances before the court. 143 00:19:09,640 --> 00:19:11,080 And these are really huge numbers, 144 00:19:11,080 --> 00:19:21,880 considering that a margin that the competition to sort of represent one of these countries in these cases is pretty intense. 145 00:19:21,880 --> 00:19:28,510 But in any event, the data speaks for itself. 146 00:19:28,510 --> 00:19:35,320 I don't think there are any particular surprises, any particular surprises, at least. 147 00:19:35,320 --> 00:19:39,520 I wasn't very surprised when I saw a lot of these names. 148 00:19:39,520 --> 00:19:48,670 And I think that a lot of this law firms or whatever entities, let's call them, had a lot of these entities, 149 00:19:48,670 --> 00:19:55,570 their share of cases in other fora in international law might be very similar. 150 00:19:55,570 --> 00:20:00,930 But I'm not dealing with other fora, but I suspect that it's very similar. 151 00:20:00,930 --> 00:20:05,530 Nonoy, seedy law firms. So the one there were there were four. This is exciting for me, though. 152 00:20:05,530 --> 00:20:11,080 Some for naanu ECD law firms, including one from the Congo. 153 00:20:11,080 --> 00:20:17,650 In one of the Congo cases is one from Russia, one from Serbia, Montenegro and one from Bahrain. 154 00:20:17,650 --> 00:20:24,580 But three of them, three of them actually appeared together with a major law firms. 155 00:20:24,580 --> 00:20:30,590 None of them was appearing on on on their own as the lead law firm, 156 00:20:30,590 --> 00:20:42,400 sort of the one that had instructions to to lead the legal team appearing on behalf of a country. 157 00:20:42,400 --> 00:20:48,540 So. The data, in my view, is instructive. 158 00:20:48,540 --> 00:20:57,200 Without more. It confirms the continuity of this very exclusive ICJ bar. 159 00:20:57,200 --> 00:21:04,400 This is not even my point. This is the point in the literature, even the literature that doesn't have the data of a senior white male from 160 00:21:04,400 --> 00:21:10,040 Western countries dominating practise at the International Court of Justice. 161 00:21:10,040 --> 00:21:21,190 So I have questions. You know, a lot of the literature emphasises expertise and deep knowledge and experience and social capital and reputation. 162 00:21:21,190 --> 00:21:29,220 And when I started writing my write up several months ago, I, I sort of developed a very long draught. 163 00:21:29,220 --> 00:21:37,820 But then I got very dissatisfied. I just couldn't figure out whether these were the explanations, the only explanations for the data. 164 00:21:37,820 --> 00:21:46,460 It seemed to me that these explanations were begging more questions than answering the questions that I had. 165 00:21:46,460 --> 00:21:52,430 And so I began thinking about also the way in which this elite lawyers build and develop 166 00:21:52,430 --> 00:21:59,540 this elite reputations that enable them to be this repeat players and that this law firms, 167 00:21:59,540 --> 00:22:10,160 too, have so many cases before the court. And so the things I'll tell you that, you know, as I conclude the things that I'm thinking about and, 168 00:22:10,160 --> 00:22:14,280 you know, we can open this for discussion because I don't have the answers yet. 169 00:22:14,280 --> 00:22:25,260 But I'll tell you what I'm thinking. I think that it's really important to explore the way that these elite lawyers and law 170 00:22:25,260 --> 00:22:31,590 firms occupy critical choke points in the Internet into international legal ecosystem. 171 00:22:31,590 --> 00:22:45,660 Let me call it that way. This is in terms of things like they're leading academics, they're in the leading journals. 172 00:22:45,660 --> 00:22:51,200 They make International Law Commission, then the leading a betrayal bodies. 173 00:22:51,200 --> 00:22:57,120 They are run by all this ranking bodies. 174 00:22:57,120 --> 00:23:07,500 This is, you know, some of them we know are occupying simultaneous, important, significant positions, for example, 175 00:23:07,500 --> 00:23:12,690 in the International Law Commission and deciding cases in international, be Tresham, 176 00:23:12,690 --> 00:23:17,610 on the very questions for which they have responsibility in International Law Commission. 177 00:23:17,610 --> 00:23:27,690 Some of them we know from, you know, anecdotes have articles out there on cases in which they are appearing either as counsel or on whatever side. 178 00:23:27,690 --> 00:23:33,130 So this is sort of looking at the international intense national economic international law, 179 00:23:33,130 --> 00:23:40,410 Eco-System, and not sort of just thinking about the court. So I think that is really important on trying to figure that out. 180 00:23:40,410 --> 00:23:44,670 And it's really hard to figure out. But I think that there is something there. 181 00:23:44,670 --> 00:23:53,790 I think something more than simply about deep knowledge and deep, deep expertise and deep experience. 182 00:23:53,790 --> 00:23:58,400 So we have to unpack what that really means, in my view. 183 00:23:58,400 --> 00:24:06,780 But also, I think it's very important to think about the sophisticated and strategic lobbying for clients, 184 00:24:06,780 --> 00:24:11,250 especially for those that are in the big law funds with Connexions and Resources. 185 00:24:11,250 --> 00:24:18,390 And so one of the things that I've studied doing is that I have studied conducting interviews, off the record interviews. 186 00:24:18,390 --> 00:24:21,660 So there are things I could say and there are things I couldn't say. 187 00:24:21,660 --> 00:24:32,760 But I think that for us to really develop a better understanding of of of of this data, I think one has to go to that level. 188 00:24:32,760 --> 00:24:38,160 I'm not sure that I'll be able to do that with any level of authority that I can publish anything. 189 00:24:38,160 --> 00:24:42,120 But I'm just intrigued that I want to continue pursuing this. 190 00:24:42,120 --> 00:24:49,080 So the last thing I want to say is that you have two more slides. 191 00:24:49,080 --> 00:24:59,320 But one is to say that I. I don't know how to say this, but. 192 00:24:59,320 --> 00:25:09,160 I'm also interested in figuring out on the demand side for the Nano ECD countries, the way in which these appointments happen. 193 00:25:09,160 --> 00:25:13,310 At least I know in the international nutrition context, 194 00:25:13,310 --> 00:25:28,350 why down the street is that if if an investor designates a particular lawyer in London to be to be appointed as the arbitrator, 195 00:25:28,350 --> 00:25:34,780 that the respondent country is likely to go to Paris or come back to London or to be New York or to be in Washington, 196 00:25:34,780 --> 00:25:40,540 D.C. too much, the the council the arbitrator has been appointed on the other side. 197 00:25:40,540 --> 00:25:48,220 And I don't know whether this is what's happening in the ICJ. Maybe we can talk about that. 198 00:25:48,220 --> 00:25:53,200 And I you know, so there are things here that I think need to be figured out. 199 00:25:53,200 --> 00:25:57,920 And and they are really important. Now, with regard to that, 200 00:25:57,920 --> 00:26:03,160 this one of the thing that's really been quite revealing is that all this leading 201 00:26:03,160 --> 00:26:09,010 lawyers have won national awards in the countries that they've represented. 202 00:26:09,010 --> 00:26:21,190 So they're these sort of prestigious awards given to non nationals by the executive branches of the various countries around the world. 203 00:26:21,190 --> 00:26:30,730 And I have started developing all these lists of these elite prises, national recognition prises that these leading lawyers have received, 204 00:26:30,730 --> 00:26:38,050 which suggests to me that they are deeply embedded and connected within those national context in which they represent. 205 00:26:38,050 --> 00:26:44,710 In one case, one of those is one of the cases, one of the cases, the case was nationally televised. 206 00:26:44,710 --> 00:26:50,590 The lawyer in question who represented this country was a celebrity in that country. 207 00:26:50,590 --> 00:26:55,380 So this are the types of things that I'm interested in figuring out. 208 00:26:55,380 --> 00:26:58,900 And maybe this doesn't sound very academic, but this is what interests me. 209 00:26:58,900 --> 00:27:05,210 You know, things that appear in the national in The New York Times is about Paul Reckless. 210 00:27:05,210 --> 00:27:13,770 And this is, you know, maybe the second article in just a couple of years about his, you know, about his his practise. 211 00:27:13,770 --> 00:27:22,390 You know, I think it's instructive for some of the things that I'm trying to trace for which I think there needs to be more research on. 212 00:27:22,390 --> 00:27:27,910 So thank you very much for your patience and listening to my ramblings. 213 00:27:27,910 --> 00:27:33,838 And I look forward to the conversation. Thank you very much.