The Minister will be delighted to know that this will be my final intervention, but clause 2 deals with the optional protocol that extends the convention's authority to deal with humanitarian aid. However, as Dr. Howells suggested, it brings us back to the issue of protection, and to signs and symbols. Will the Minister buttonhole this once and for all? Surely a sign has a strictly limited meaning but a symbol, as Jung argued, is far more subtle. When we use a symbol, we imply or suggest all that lies behind it. Does the Minister agree that, when it comes to protection, that is critical? He is well qualified to answer that, as he is Jung at heart.
Copy and paste this code on your website