Yeah, so that's a good question. I mean, it's funny, I was talking about the difficulty of reaching agreement which is usually the easy piece in international law, right? States are quick to sign a document that says the world will be filled with flowers and no weapons, right? Everybody will sign that document. Why? Because it's ultimately pretty unenforceable. Enforcement is sort of the core question of international law. How these international agreements can be enforced and can they have any meaning? Do they have any pull? Do they affect domestic politics? When the enforcement mechanisms themselves are quite weak? I think, ultimately, that they can have an effect. So, let's say that two states get together and sign an agreement saying that they will not hack their citizens, each other's citizen's medical devices. Although there's no way to enforce that agreement potentially, you might imagine that because there's a lot of pomp and circumstance around that and there are newspaper articles about the agreement and people come to expect that government A and government B are both going to refrain from hacking medical devices. Then suppose 10 years later, there's a leak that reveals that they have done it. There would be outrage in any context, in any world. But I think the outrage is higher in a world in which the states have come together to say we are committed to a norm of not hacking medical devices. Medical devices are special, we're going to leave them apart. So in that way, the state and the state actor, who's thinking about getting re-elected or worried about their party or whatever it is, might be just that much more hesitant to push the button, to begin the operation to hack a medical device if they fear political backlash. So that's a very weak enforcement mechanism. It's not the same as a policeman putting a gun to your head to enforce the law. But, it's at least something.