Filling an Arctic Gap: Legal and Regulatory Possibilities for Canadian-U.S. Cooperation in the Beaufort Sea
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Canada and the United States disagree as to the location of their maritime boundary in the Beaufort Sea of the Arctic Ocean, yet are working together in the region to map the extended continental shelf. This article proposes that the model used for joint seabed mapping - Canadian - U.S. scientific cooperation in accord with international law and institutions including the law of the sea - can also apply to the use of areas such as the Beaufort Sea. It suggests that cooperation to gather and expand upon relevant baseline data about the region is the proper foundation for any activity in the disputed area. On this basis, multiple, non-exclusive uses are possible and can provide for a range of sustainable and compatible activities if introduced gradually. Uses could be broader than typically associated with hydrocarbon cross-border unitization agreements and joint development zones or, for that matter, subsistence uses or marine protected areas. Continuing to expand the storehouse of data about the region can also serve as the foundation for joint ecosystem-based, integrated management or oversight of the area - a principle that is already central to each country’s approach to oceans management. Canada and the United States have recently begun planning for a bilateral Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) management pilot project in the Beaufort Sea under the auspices of the PAME/Arctic Council. This paper introduces and complements that process by exploring the regulatory foundations for a model of science-based, phased, multiple, and non-exclusive uses of the Beaufort Sea triangle under joint oversight. Such a model allows for a comparison and possible future harmonization of the best regulatory practices in each system, improving the overall quality of the practices in each state. This article provides concrete examples of how national legal systems can interrelate to fill gaps in arctic governance and regulation. The article and its title build on the Koivurova and Molenaar 2009 WWF gap analysis of arctic governance (i.e. international institutions) and regulation (i.e., international laws and regulations) by applying it to the domestic and bilateral arrangements of Canada and the United States. This article assumes that certain key concepts Koivurova and Molenaar identify—environmental assessment, marine protected areas, and “integrated cross-sectoral ecosystem-based ocean management” - are already woven into the legislative and regulatory fabric of Canada and the United States. However, it explores the extent to which this is true, as well as ways in which these elements can be expanded upon. It also suggests where these national systems might work together to improve legal and policy decisions affecting multiple uses of the disputed Beaufort Sea area. It concludes with a brief overview of how Canada and the United States do and may further incorporate selected multilateral, regional, and bilateral arrangements into their ocean infrastructures. This Part pays special attention to arrangements relating to the Arctic Council, touching also on the international law of the sea, and the International Maritime Organization. Throughout, the article draws eclectically on examples from fisheries, shipping, and offshore oil and gas activity.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,022 | 0,021 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,018 | 0,011 |
| Communication savante | 0,013 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».