because i think that understanding will help you understand why washington has elected not to allow him story arbitration matters but one of the major issues in the underlying pace is the calculation calculation it is three million six hundred thousand dollars so that one issue is a three million dollars issue amicus in this case united policyholders have submitted a brief and in that brief pages five mischief that can be caused when one of the parties to the dispute is to set the rules if you look at excerpt of record sixty nine you'll find a portion of the insurance policy that discusses arbitration and this washington state very clearly prohibits mandatory arbitration in insurance policies the james river case which has been discussed in the brief makes clear the only question in this appeal is whether that and so mike my question is since they can be both what is your very best shot at convincing us that the provision where procrustean on article two section three is non self executing i have that i so why did why shouldn't we be concerned about what the solicitor had to say i know you're very familiar with this record and we've been all over it so why should we be concerned with the solicitor's view which says that treaties can be self executing and not tough executing and that article two section three is you know he took a strong position that because it speaks directly to the court that itself executing because when you look at what president johnson said and what the senate said when it was considering the convention at that record is more important  for something different than the self executing pretty it talks about the convention act meaning that international tribunals can be afforded a different status than they would otherwise it's in a separate sentence and really to come to the conclusion that you say and maybe there's a specific part of that where you read it differently and if so it would be helpful to hear that because i think we are we start with the language of the treaty of course got that to be sure but right eat you've got that but the problem is we've got this language we go to the language and it just seems to speak directly to the port and i'm and you don't see it that you talk you talk you describe it as a general arbitration and it says that the court of the contracting state would do that so you don't need congress in this case like you that we just have a difference of how we view it your time is up but we're going to give you some rebuttal time we have let you exceed your time are are a great deal of issues related to what rules apply what happens when you have to enforce a judgment that sort of thing and all of those really rely on acts of congress well i would push back on that today really is no ambiguity that as long as there are an arbitration provision in a policy between a foreign entity and someone here in the united states it needs to be going to arbitration and i'd also like to touch i could you could you help me out on that point because i a question on this point that you just mentioned egypt said you think this is a self executing treaty so does that mean that you agree with judge comment regarding the article three maybe that that must be the  court is referring to and that dicta or are you saying that you think this is a partially you've indicated that this particular section which is mandatory directive to the courts executing but other portions might not be where do you have basically going through and putting the restatement and saying you know and i think there are statements pretty clear on this treaty as you know candy does that mean you're five or caving at the when you're looking at whether you're going to enforce on being fired out of court you really need to look at the with the supreme court or holding things telling us that we can't strain defy the domestic statute complex better national law it's really important that international law be predictable and there's comedy and i want to say that that's really important in this instance i can do a portion of arrests and not the risk itself meaning they can ensure things that no one else well and part of the reason they're willing to do that is because they can predict where it will be hauled into court i mean i think it's important to note here that to me he's got a good response to that i'm sure but i do think that you know the fact is that the reason that my clients are willing to do ensurance for that is because they need to know if no one else was here they need to know where exactly they're going to be hauled into court and part of that reason is they are insurance companies mr rivera to put a minute on the clock we already actually gave you a couple extra minutes but you need some battle time thank you very much i will pick last minute my response to the c m or time on her solicitor questions it appears not thank you i would like to thank both counsel for your arguments you obviously are very familiar with the treaty as well as the statutes and