Well, two previous speakers already laid out everything so maybe I will just pass now. No, I will continue here.

Just to let you know that Denmark has also been very active in the military campaign and we have to go to Parliament every single time that we deploy our troops in combat situations. According to our constitution we have to get consent by Parliament, by simple majority. This means that there is a lot of focus on our legal basis, and we have to adhere to international law.

In general, we have a couple of justifications, like Paul just said, Article 42, the provision of use of force, is, of course, the ultimate extent of that we have, and then there are exceptions. We have identified so far four exceptions. One is consent. It is a case of invitation. You also have self-defense, collective self-defense, Article 51. You have, of course, the UN Security Council resolutions that can authorize use of force. And then we actually also look at other bases of international law. We have, as one of the few countries also adhering to the doctrine of humanitarian interventions. That might not be, I think, applicable in the case of non-state actors, but just so you know where Denmark stands on this.

And on Iraq, to make it quite short, when we entered, in 2014, with our military forces into Iraq, that was based on the consent and the invitation by the Iraqi government. We came, I think as the third country in the coalition, together with our British colleagues, in the northern part of Iraq, to do capacity training there. We later on also had our F-16s bombing in Iraq. That was also based on consent.

Later on, though, actually when we were closer to the border of Syria, at the Al Asad base, we had a radar there, which meant that the radar actually goes 360, so we also had images in Syria. At that point all the information was then sent to the coalition. That meant that legally we felt the need to go to the Security Council with our Article 51 letter, since we were then supporting the campaign in Syria. Later on, we also had F-16s in Syria, but the Article 51 letter, if I can just read out a little bit from that, is that we write in accordance with Article 51, and we mentioned the exercise of inherent right of collective self-defense. We highlighted what is mentioned in Resolution 2249. That states some of the things Paul also mentioned, but especially that ISIL has the capacity and capability to carry out further attacks, and the Security Council call upon its own member state to eradicate the safe haven ISIL has established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria, and that, hence, we are there in accordance with Article 51 and we are taking measures against ISIL in support of this cause.

I think that is where we are right now. We, of course, evaluate the situation all the time, but we will see what happens.