Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The persistent question of whether United Nations is doing good job, which simple-minded pollsters keep putting to their publics, puts issue upside down. The United Nations cannot do anything; only its members can. International institutions are not ends in themselves; they are means to ends. They are not self-propelled; they have to be used with wisdom and foresight by member states.John W Holmes, 1986'The above quotation by John Holmes - distinguished diplomat, esteemed author, much-loved teacher and mentor - continues to have relevance in examining and explaining purpose and value of United Nations. Moreover, given Holmes's passion for teaching through case studies, and his belief that Canada's growing importance in law of sea conferences was indicative of it becoming a country of increasing consequence in kind of world affairs that are beginning to matter most,2 it is fitting to consider his words with specific reference to international regime to delineate continental shelf extensions (i.e., continental shelf beyond usual limit of 200 nautical miles that belongs to adjacent coastal state).3 His comments forcefully convey several truths pertinent to understanding our case: that United Nations depends on political will of its members in order to act; that it is means to an end; and that its effectiveness requires wisdom and foresight of member states. What is not made explicit in quote is fact that UN is more than sum of its parts. By providing venues for interstate negotiations, as well as expertise and technical and secretarial assistance to facilitate states' work, UN is vital to creation and management of regime to delineate continental shelf extensions.The establishment and implementation of regime to delineate continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles is an effective vehicle for assessing wisdom of John Holmes's words for several reasons. The case spans four decades, from early 1970s to present. As such, it addresses periods before, during, and after Holmes penned his comments. Politically, case involves relations with our closest neighbours: United States, Russia, and Denmark (on behalf of Greenland). Furthermore, major economic interests are at stake for and its neighbours. The area is vast. According to Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Canada estimates that its continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in Atlantic and Arctic Oceans covers approximately 1.75 million square kilometers (equal to three prairie provinces combined).4 The extension off Canada's east coast is known to contain rich deposits of oil and gas. Extensive deposits are also expected in Arctic. As Canada's continental shelf extensions are geographically concentrated off east coast and in Arctic, they have potential to affect voting behaviour.I begin with brief overview of regime to delineate continental shelf extensions. Thereafter UN's contributions to norm creation and norm implementation are assessed sequentially. In both cases, political will of member states is essential determinant of success.OVERVIEW OF THE REGIMEThe rules and regulations governing world's oceans are specified in United Nations convention on law of sea (hereafter LOS convention): all coastal states have sovereign rights to resources in water column and seabed within 200 nautical miles from shore. The LOS convention defines continental shelf as submerged prolongation of coastal state's land territory. When such prolongations extend beyond 200 nautical miles, they belong to coastal state.5 On its continental shelf extension, coastal state has sovereign rights to explore and exploit the non-living resources of sea-bed and subsoil.6 The interests at stake are considerable.The LOS convention specifies both enabling criteria for ascertaining whether continental shelf protrudes beyond 200 nautical miles and constraints to amount of seabed beyond 200 nautical miles over which coastal state has rights. …
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».