I've always maintained that the court, of course, does not have the responsibility and should not promote itself, because if we did, then the court would begin to have this political angle that I think it's very important we never have.
The court, however, has the responsibility to explain what it does. We have engaged, and I have personally engaged, on a responsive basis in many visits to other countries to explain the court. I've been twice to India. I've been to Pakistan, China, Russia, and Middle East countries. I have been to any number of countries, including the United States.
But this is all the court can do, to explain what it does, not to promote. So it is, of course, very useful when states like Canada continue to organize conferences, to explain, to give indications, for example, on the technical means of ratifying the statute, which are not always well understood, but certainly explain the court so that all these misapprehensions about the court disappear.
Of course, a major part of that process will come from the court itself. The court has to demonstrate that it is able and willing to adhere to the principles that underlie its creation.