That's because we've agreed as a body to behave as if the new convention was already in place. We've agreed to have decision by consensus. We've agreed to implement things such as ecosystem-based management and protection of vulnerable ecosystems, even though it's not covered by the convention. So we've determined that's a better way to proceed. We're acting as if the convention's in place and the results are positive.
On the objection procedure, yes, somebody can object under the new convention. There is, however, the dispute settlement, and the dispute settlement can lead to going to UNFA. And if it goes to UNFA, and the arbitration under UNFA decides on an outcome, that is binding on the parties.
You'll no doubt hear from other witnesses that by interpreting the minutia in the law you might be able to find a loophole. Having said that, that is not consistent with the obligations under UNFA to cooperate. It's not consistent with the way the organization has been operating, so looking at what is potentially or theoretically possible versus what's happening is the key.