![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
Abstract
Law and space are intimately connected. In the ocean, the natural environment is divided into maritime zones. Such a division neglects the interconnected nature of the ocean and its inhabitants. Since this zonal approach relies on geographically stable boundaries, it also limits the opportunities to manage a fluid ocean. Area-based management tools, including marine protected areas (MPAs), address some of the limitations of zonal management. However, MPAs are also static from a geographical point of view. The deteriorating state of many marine species and ecosystems indicates a failure of traditional management approaches and puts a renewed emphasis on adapting legal scales to “natural scales,” such as ecosystems. In this article, we argue that there are positive trends and new tools that could be developed within the current legal order to face the challenges that nature is facing in the Anthropocene. One such tool is dynamic ocean management, which moves away from the static rationale of traditional ocean management illustrated here by MPAs, toward a management system focused on the temporal and spatial dynamism of the marine environment. In order to understand how such a management tool could be developed and used within the current legal system, we show how traditional ocean management rests on the notion of delimited and static boundaries and temporarily fixed measures. We discuss this in terms of fixity and simplification. Then we analyze dynamic ocean management and its potential to capture more of the complexity of the marine environment. This analysis is followed by an overview of MPAs and networks of MPAs in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), where we discuss the impact of the Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Treaty) in the development of dynamic ocean management. This overview provides information about both the possibilities and challenges of area-based management in ABNJ. We argue that MPA networks and large marine ecosystems (LMEs), coupled with the establishment of coordination mechanisms between existing institutional structures, are necessary first steps to secure dynamic ocean management.
Notes
1 James C. Scott, Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (Yale University Press, 1998), chapter 1, 11.
2 UNGA Resolution A/RES/70/1, Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (21 October 2015), available at: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N15/291/89/PDF/N1529189.pdf?OpenElement (accessed 27 November 2023).
3 “Understand the effects of multiple stressors on ocean ecosystems, and develop solutions to monitor, protect, manage and restore ecosystems and their biodiversity under changing environmental, social and climate conditions.” Available at: https://oceandecade.org/challenges/ (accessed 27 November 2023).
4 Alistair J. Hobday, Sara M. Maxwell, Julia Forgie et al, “Dynamic Ocean Management: Integrating Scientific and Technological Capacity With Law, Policy, and Management” (2014) 33(2) Stanford Environmental Law Journal 125, 127.
5 Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Treaty), adopted on 19 June 2023. Available at: https://www.un.org/bbnj/ (accessed 25 November 2023).
6 Craig R. Allen, Joseph J. Fontaine, Kevin L. Pope et al, “Adaptive Management for a Turbulent Future” (2011) 92(5) Journal of Environmental Management 1339, 1343; Jonas Ebbesson and Ellen Hey, “Introduction: Where in Law Is Social-Ecological Resilience?” (2013) 18(3) Ecology and Society 18(3), article number 25.
7 Neil Smith, “Geography, Difference and Politics of Scale,” in Joe Doherty, Elspeth Graham, and Mo Malek (eds), Postmodernism and the Social Sciences (Palgrave Macmillan, 1992), 57, 73–74.
8 Irus Braverman, Nicholas K. Blomley, David Delaney et al, “Introduction: Expanding the Spaces of Law,” in Irus Braverman, Nicholas K. Blomley, David Delaney et al (eds), The Expanding Spaces of Law: A Timely Legal Geography (Stanford Law Books, 2014), 1.
9 Scott, note 1, 22–24.
10 See, e.g., Aron Westholm, Scaling Marine and Water Management (diss., Gothenburg, University of Gothenburg, 2021), 264.
11 Natacha Nikolic, Morandeau Gilles, Ludovic Rémy Hoarau et al, “Review of Albacore Tuna, Thunnus alalunga, Biology, Fisheries and Management” (2017) 27(4) Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 775, 778–779.
12 International Maritime Organization, Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection GESAMP, Reports and Studies 93, “Sources, Fate and Effects of Microplastics in the Marine Environment: Part 2 of a Global Assessment” (2016) 31. Available at: http://www.gesamp.org/publications/microplastics-in-the-marine-environment-part-2 (accessed 25 November 2023).
13 Leslie Acton, Lisa M. Campbell, Jesse Cleary et al, “What Is the Sargasso Sea? The Problem of Fixing Space in a Fluid Ocean” (2019) 68 Political Geography 86, 97.
14 Philip Steinberg and Kimberly Peters, “Wet Ontologies, Fluid Spaces: Giving Depth to Volume Through Oceanic Thinking” (2015) 33(2) Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 247, 257.
15 Acton, Campbell, Cleary et al, note 13, 97.
16 Daniel Lambach, “The Functional Territorialization of The High Seas” (2021) 130 Marine Policy article 104579, 1. Territorialization means that “maritime space is parceled into territories that are then administered and controlled by States or intergovernmental organizations.” This article takes a broader interpretation of territorialization than Lambach's definition. While Lambach views territorialization practices as space-making outside of national sovereignty or jurisdiction, we use the term to refer to both within and outside areas of national jurisdiction.
17 Alexander Proelss and Katherine Houghton, “Protecting Marine Species,” in Rosemary Rayfuse (ed), Research Handbook on International Marine Environmental Law (Edward Elgar, 2015), 229; Yoshifumi Tanaka, The International Law of the Sea (3rd ed.) (Cambridge University Press, 2018), 289–301.
18 Ranganathan points out that “UNCLOS, establishes an extractive imaginary of the ocean. It does so, firstly, by a series of complex divisions of ocean space which have the paradoxical effect of simplifying it into places of feasible economic activity.” Surabhi Ranganathan, “The Vexed Liminality of Hydrothermal Vents: An Opportunity to Unmake the Law of the Sea” in Irus Braverman (ed), Laws of the Sea: Interdisciplinary Currents (Routledge, 2023) 27, 30.
19 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, adopted 10 December 1982, entered into force 16 November 1994, 1833 UNTS 397, Art 77 [hereinafter UNCLOS].
20 UNCLOS, Art 63(2).
21 UNCLOS, Art 63(1).
22 UNCLOS, Art 61 (3).
23 UNCLOS, Arts 61(1)(2), 63, and 119.
24 UNCLOS, Art 67.
25 UNCLOS, Art 66.
26 Cameron Jefferies, Marine Mammal Conservation and the Law of the Sea (Oxford University Press, 2016), 2.
27 Ibid.
28 These authors analyze UNCLOS and find that marine mammals are not subject to the principle of optimum utilization and that the focus of this treaty “is more on conservation rather than on utilization.” See Proelss and Houghton, note 17, 237.
29 Jefferies, note 26, 1.
30 Decision V/6, of the Convention on Biological Diversity, UNEP/CBD/COP/5/23, Ecosystem Approach, (Nairobi, Kenya 2000).
31 See, for example, Aichi Target 11: “[b]y 2020, at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well-connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscapes and seascapes.” CBD Decision X/2 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020, Aichi Biodiversity Targets (Nagoya, 2010).
32 Marine Conservation Institute, “MPA Guide Marine Protection Database” available at: https://mpatlas.org/mpaguide/?sizeclass=Svl (accessed 27 June 2023); Hanling Wang, “Ecosystem Management and its Application to Large Marine Ecosystems: Science, Law, and Politics” (2004) 35 Ocean Development & International Law 41, 46.
33 See Markus J. Kachel, Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas: the IMO’s Role in Protecting Vulnerable Marine Areas (Springer, 2008) parts 3 and 4.
34 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-Sea Fisheries in the High Seas (2009), 5–7. Available at: https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/b02fc35e-a0c4-545a-86fb-4fc340e13b52 (accessed 25 November 2023).
35 See UNCLOS Articles 145 and 209; Alex Oude Elferink, “Protecting the Environment of ABNJ Through Marine Protected Areas and Area-Based Management Tools: Is the Glass Half Empty or Half Full and Whose Glass Is It Anyway?” in Vito De Lucia, Alex Oude Elferink and Lan Ngoc Nguyen (eds), International Law and Marine Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction: Reflections on Justice, Space, Knowledge and Power (Brill/Nijhoff, 2022), 205, 218–219.
36 Ingvild Ulrikke Jakobsen, Marine Protected Areas in International Law: An Arctic Perspective (Brill Nijhoff, 2016), 5.
37 Nigel Dudley (ed), Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories (Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 2008) x + 86pp, 13–16.
38 Rebecca Lewison, Alistair J. Hobday, Sara Maxwell et al, “Dynamic Ocean Management: Identifying the Critical Ingredients of Dynamic Approaches to Ocean Resource Management” (2015) 65(5) BioScience 486, 488.
39 Dominic A. Andradi-Brown, Laura Veverka, Amkieltiela et al, “Diversity in Marine Protected Area Regulations: Protection Approaches for Locally Appropriate Marine Management” (2023) 10 Frontiers in Marine Science, 1–19, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2023.1099579, 3.
40 Ibid.
41 Ibid, table 3.
42 Steven Gaines, Crow White, Mark H. Carr et al, “Designing Marine Reserve Networks for Both Conservation and Fisheries Management” (2010) 107(43) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 18286, 18288; Jean-Luc Solandt, Peter Jones, Dominique Duval-Diop et al, “Governance Challenges in Scaling Up From Individual MPAs to MPA Networks” (2014) 24(2) Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 145, 146; Richard Kenchington, Michel Kaiser and K. Boeder, MPAs, Fishery Closures and Stock Rebuilding (Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Rome, 2018) 1, 197-198; Eric Gilman, Michel Kaiser and Milani Chaloupka, “Do Static and Dynamic Marine Protected Areas That Restrict Pelagic Fishing Achieve Ecological Objectives?” (2019) 10(12) Ecosphere, article e02968, 2; Jamie Allan, Karen Beazley and Anna Metaxas, “Ecological Criteria for Designing Effective MPA Networks for Large Migratory Pelagics: Assessing the Consistency Between IUCN Best Practices and Scholarly Literature” (2021) 127 Marine Policy, article 104219, 9–11; Deborah Rowan Wright, Future Sea: How to Rescue and Protect the World’s Oceans (University of Chicago Press, 2020), 26.
43 Madhuri Ramesh and Nitin Rai, “Trading on Conservation: A Marine Protected Area as an Ecological Fix" (2017) 82 Marine Policy 25, 26. This is a concept that builds on political geographer David Harvey’s concept of “spatial fix”: David Harvey, “Globalization and the ‘Spatial Fix’” (2001) 2 Geographische Revue 23.
44 Ramesh and Rai, note 43, 27–28.
45 Vito De Lucia, “Ocean Heterolegalities? Ocean Commons and the Heterotopias of Sovereign Legality” in Irus Braverman (ed), Laws of the Sea: Interdisciplinary Currents (Routledge, 2023), 121, 135.
46 Ibid.
47 Henry Jones, “Lines in the Ocean: Thinking With the Sea About Territory and International Law” (2016) 4(2) London Review of International Law 307, 321.
48 Henry Jones, “Commodifying the Oceans: The North Sea Continental Shelf Case Revisited” in Irus Braverman (ed), note 45, 59, 63.
49 Lewison, Hobday, Maxwell et al, note 38, 488–490; Sara Maxwell, Elliott L. Hazen, Rebecca L. Lewison et al, “Dynamic Ocean Management: Defining and Conceptualizing Real-Time Management of the Ocean” (2015) 58 Marine Policy 42, 43–46; Guillermo Ortuño Crespo, Joanna Mossop, Daniel Dunn et al, “Beyond Static Spatial Management: Scientific and Legal Considerations for Dynamic Management in the High Seas” (2020) 122 Marine Policy, article 104102, 7–8; Allan, Beazley and Metaxas, note 42, 7.
50 Maxwell, Hazen, Lewison et al, note 49, 44.
51 Hobday, Maxwell, Forgie et al, note 4, 130–131.
52 Sara M. Maxwell, Kristina M. Gjerde, Melinda G. Conners et al, "Mobile Protected Areas for Biodiversity on the High Seas" (2020) 367(6575) Science 254, 253.
53 Ibid.
54 Cashion, Nguyen, Brink et al. caution that dynamic protected areas may be unfeasible near coastal areas owing to the wide variety of human uses of marine space in these areas, where many people and coastal communities rely on the ocean for their livelihood. See Tim Cashion, Tu Nguyen, Talya ten Brink et al, “Shifting Seas, Shifting Boundaries: Dynamic Marine Protected Area Designs for a Changing Climate” (2020) 15(11) PloS ONE e0241771, 1, 11.
55 Frank Biermann, Philipp Pattberg, Harro van Asselt et al, “The Fragmentation of Global Governance Architectures: A Framework for Analysis” (2009) 9(4) Global Environmental Politics 14, 19–21; Sarah Burch, Aarti Gupta, Cristina Y. A. Inoue et al, "New Directions in Earth System Governance Research" (2019) 1 Earth System Governance 100006 1, 7.
56 Hobday Maxwell, Forgie et al, note 4, 129.
57 Westholm, note 10, 20–21.
58 Maxwell Hazen, Lewison et al, note 49, 48.
59 Ibid, 44.
60 Dudley, note 37, 4.
61 Ibid.
62 Convention on Biological Diversity, adopted 22 May 1992, entered into force 29 December 1993, 1760 UNTS 79 [hereinafter CBD].
63 Decision CBD VII/5, UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/VII/5, Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity, (13 April 2004).
64 Karen N. Scott, “Area-Based Protection Beyond National Jurisdiction Opportunities and Obstacles” (2019) 4(2) Asia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and Policy 158, 159.
65 David Freestone, “The UN Process to Develop an International Legally Binding Instrument Under the 1982 Law Convention: Issues and Challenges” in David Freestone (ed), Conserving Biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (Brill Nijhoff, 2019) 3, 16–20.
66 Gabriela Argüello, “Opportunities for Protecting Biological Diversity in the Arctic Ocean” (2022) XIII The Yearbook of Polar Law 127, 128.
67 Karen N. Scott, "Unconventional Lawmaking in the Law of the Sea and Area-based Conservation Measures," in Natalie Klein (ed), Unconventional Lawmaking in the Law of the Sea: Current Practice and Future Prospects (Oxford University Press, 2022) 309, 310.
68 Argüello, note 66, 128.
69 Scott, note 64, 164–168. Nonetheless, in areas within national jurisdiction, protected areas are a fundamental tool within the CBD. See for example the Jakarta Mandate. CBD Decision II/10 Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity (6–17 November 1995); CBD Decision IV/5 Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity, Including a Programme of Work (4–15 May 1998).
70 Scott, note 64, 164–168.
71 James Harrison, Saving the Oceans Through Law: the International Legal Framework for the Protection of the Marine Environment (Oxford University Press, 2017), 51; Argüello, note 66, 134–135; Decision VII/5, note 63.
72 OSPAR Commission, OSPAR’s Regulatory Regime for Establishing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ) of the OSPAR Maritime Area (June 2009); Erik J. Molenaar and Alex Oude Elferink, “Marine Protected Areas in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction—The Pioneering Efforts Under the OSPAR Convention” (2009) 5(1) Utrecht Law Review 5, 17–19; Nele Matz-Lück and Johannes Fuchs, “The Impact of OSPAR on Protected Area Management Beyond National Jurisdiction: Effective Regional Cooperation or a Network of Paper Parks?” (2014) 49 Marine Policy 155, 158–159; Scott, note 67, 316–317.
73 “It should be noted that the twelfth MPA, North-West Rockall SAC (SAC—Special Area of Conservation), occurs partly within the EEZ and partly within the—extended continental shelf—ECS of the UK. This MPA has been assigned to the UK national waters category.” OSPAR Commission, Biodiversity and Ecosystems Series, Report and Assessment of the Status of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in 2021 (2022), 20.
74 Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius v United Kingdom) (Award), Permanent Court of Arbitration 2015, [320] and [538].
75 BBNJ Treaty, Art 7(f).
76 Decision V/6, note 30.
77 Wang, note 32, 42.
78 Dudley, note 37.
79 BBNJ Treaty, Art 1(9).
80 OSPAR Recommendation 2003/3 on a Network of Marine Protected Areas, Consolidated Text OSPAR Recommendation 2010/2 (24 September 2010).
81 Maxwell Gjerde, Conners et al, note 52, 253.
82 Gilman, Kaiser, Chaloupka et al, note 42, 15–16.
83 BBNJ Treaty, Annex 1 (c) (f) (m).
84 Andradi-Brown Veverka, Amkieltiela et al, note 39; Jones, note 47, 321.
85 Maxwell Gjerde, Conners et al, note 52.
86 BBNJ Treaty, Art 7(k)(n).
87 Erin Barlow, “Unprecedented Marine Biodiversity Shifts Necessitate Innovation: The Case For Dynamic Ocean Management in the UN High-Seas Conservation Agreement” (2021) 27(2) Hastings Environmental Law Journal 121, 132.
88 Scott explains that “MPAs tend to be ecologically connected to large areas and subject to impacts from activities taking place outside of the management area and thus beyond the control of “managers.” The necessity for connectivity at the genetic, population, community and ecological level thus calls for the creation of MPA networks.” Scott, note 64, 163.
89 IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (IUCN-WCPA), Establishing Marine Protected Area Networks—Making It Happen (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and The Nature Conservancy, 2008). Available at: https://www.iucn.org/content/establishing-resilient-marine-protected-area-networks-making-it-happen (accessed 25 November 2023), 12.
90 OSPAR Recommendation 2003/3, note 80, 4.
91 Kenchington, Kaiser, Boeder et al, note 42, 200; Allan, Beazley, Metaxas et al, note 42, 11; Maryann S. Watson, Anne-Marie Jackson, Georgia Lloyd-Smith et al, “Comparing the Marine Protected Area Network Planning Process in British Columbia, Canada and New Zealand—Planning for Cooperative Partnerships With Indigenous Communities” (2021) 125 Marine Policy 104386, 4.
92 Kenneth Sherman, “Achieving Regional Cooperation in the Management of Marine Ecosystems: The Use of the Large Marine Ecosystem Approach” (1995) 29(1) Ocean & Coastal Management 165, 168.
93 On cooperation for the conservation of natural resources and marine mammals in areas within national jurisdiction see, for example, Articles 63(1), 63(2), 64, and 65 of UNCLOS that respectively deal with the conservation of shared fish stocks, straddling fish stocks, highly migratory species, and marine mammals. UNCLOS requires states to cooperate directly or through appropriate organizations to establish conservation measures. On the conservation and management of the living resources and marine mammals in the high seas, see Articles 118 and 120 of UNCLOS that oblige states to cooperate through subregional or regional organizations.
94 According to Article 192 UNCLOS, states are obliged “to protect and preserve the marine environment.” This obligation considers the marine environment as a whole and no distinction is made between areas within and beyond national jurisdiction. Article 197 prescribes that cooperation must take place on a global basis and regional basis. States can engage in such cooperation directly or through competent international organizations. See, for example, Articles 194, 197, 199, 200, 210, and 211, where cooperation through competent organizations is required to prevent, control, and mitigate marine pollution.
95 In this article we refer to international organizations in general terms, including those created by treaties, treaty organs, and soft law bodies.
96 Rosemary Rayfuse, “Regional Fisheries Management Organizations,” in Donald Rothwell, Alex Oude Elferingk, Karen N. Scott et al (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea (Oxford University Press, 2015) 439, 441.
97 Leandra R. Gonçalves, Regional Fisheries Management Organizations: The Interplay Between Governance and Science (Springer Nature Switzerland AG, 2021) chapter 1, 11–18.
98 United Nations, “The First Global Integrated Marine Assessment: World Ocean Assessment I” (2016), 2. https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/9795 (accessed 25 November 2023).
99 Surabhi Ranganathan, Strategically Created Treaty Conflicts and the Politics of International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2014), 28–31.
100 Karen Alter and Kal Raustiala, “The Rise of International Regime Complexity” (2018) 14(1) Annual Review of Law and Social Science 329, 337.
101 Ranganathan, note 99, chapter 7; Jean-Luc Solandt, Peter Jones, Dominique Duval-Diop et al, note 42, 149; Jeffrey Dunoff, “How to Avoid Regime Collisions,” in Kerstin Blome, Andreas Fischer-Lescano, Hannah Franzki et al (eds), Contested Regime Collisions: Norm Fragmentation in World Society (Cambridge University Press, 2016) 49, 55–58; Christian Kreuder-Sonnen and Michael Zürn, “After Fragmentation: Norm Collisions, Interface Conflicts, and Conflict Management” (2020) 9(2) Global Constitutionalism 241, 260–263.
102 Barlow, note 87, 135.
103 Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic as amended, adopted 22 September 1992, entered into force 25 March 1998, 2354 UNTS 67, 32 ILM 1072 [hereinafter OSPAR].
104 The OSPAR Commission has identified the instruments and bodies with competence over human activities in ABNJ. “Where competence rests with another authority/organisation, co-operation with this other competent authority/organisation will be advisable.” OSPAR Recommendation 2003/3, note 80, 5.
105 OSPAR Commission and North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, Collective Arrangement Between Competent International Organisations on Cooperation and Coordination Regarding Selected Areas in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction in the North‐East Atlantic (version 2022). Available at: https://www.ospar.org/documents?v=33030 (accessed 28 November 2023).
106 Richard Caddell, “International Fisheries Law and Interactions With Global Regimes and Processes,” in Richard Caddell and Erik J. Molenaar (eds), Strengthening International Fisheries Law in an Era of Changing Oceans (Hart Publishing, 2019), 133,156; Bastiaan Ewoud Klerk, “From Undermining to Strengthening: Implications of the Forthcoming Agreement on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction for MPA Governance in the North-East Atlantic” (2023) 38(1) International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 1, 13.
107 BBNJ Treaty, Art 17(b).
108 Argüello, note 66, 142. It is important to be aware that the term “not undermining” has been a source of intense controversy. It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the practical implications of diverse interpretations. On this subject, see Zoe Scalon, "The Art of ‘Not Undermining’: Possibilities Within Existing Architecture to Improve Environmental Protections in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction" (2018) 75(1) ICES Journal of Marine Science 405; Klerk, note 106.
109 BBNJ Treaty, Arts 19(1) and 20.
110 BBNJ Treaty, Art 20.
111 BBNJ Treaty, Art 22(1)(a)(b).
112 BBNJ Treaty, Art 22(1)(b).
113 BBNJ Treaty, Art 25(4).
114 BBNJ Treaty, Art 26(1)(2).
115 Steinberg and Peters, note 14, 256–257.
116 Scott, note 1.
117 Acton Campbell, Cleary et al, note 13.
118 See, e.g., Maxwell Hazen, Lewison et al, note 49, 46.