Sure, and I think it's very clear to emphasize that this isn't a matter of having a direct binding effect on either courts or lawmakers, right? Of course, every nation state within its own realm of affairs is supreme and sovereign, but at the same time, these are interpretive aids to courts and lawmakers.
My comments simply reflect the need to proceed with caution so that we don't stumble into the law of unintended consequences and, down the road, bind ourselves in a direction that could not necessarily be anticipated today, but because of the interpretive use of international law, may bind courts or may bind parliaments in future law reform.