The Regulation of “Modern” Ocean Data Collection Activities under UNCLOS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Scientific advances and technological developments drive transformative changes in how, where and by whom, ocean data collection activities can be conducted. These advances present opportunities to enhance knowledge and deliver benefits. However, they also bring new challenges for the applicable legal regime, particularly where the legal classification of the activities concerned is unclear. As “a constitution for the oceans”, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) aims at settling “all issues relating to the law of the sea”, including those concerning ocean data collection activities. Nevertheless, in several instances, UNCLOS provisions do not provide sufficient indications as to the legal classification of certain ocean data collection activities. A prominent example is provided by marine scientific research. Although the Convention includes a whole part on marine scientific research, it does not contain a definition of this term. As a result, the scope of activities covered by the term “marine scientific research”, and hence the scope of regulation of the UNCLOS marine scientific research regime, remain unclear or controversial. This has led to different opinions on the relationship between some specific ocean data collection activities and marine scientific research. The problem of legal classification of ocean data collection activities becomes even more complicated along with the technological advances in ocean data collection methods and means. \nThis dissertation therefore seeks to identify the appropriate legal framework(s) for “modern” ocean data collection activities. The main research question of this research is formulated as: \nTo what extent do UNCLOS and its marine scientific research regime regulate “modern” ocean data collection activities, and through which regulatory arrangements might any gaps for regulation in the Convention be filled? \nTo answer the research question, the present research is divided into six substantive chapters that constitute two parts. The first part (Chapters 2 to 5) sets out the legal framework for the regulation of ocean data collection activities and assesses how the framework has operated. In the process, UNCLOS provisions pertinent to the regulation of ocean data collection activities, subsequent State practice concerning ocean data collection, and rules contained in other international conventions concerning ocean data collection are examined. Special attention has been paid to the criteria for the legal classification of various forms of ocean data collection activities and the implications for their regulation. The second part (Chapters 6 and 7) contextualizes the observations made in the first part by carrying out two specific case studies – one on access to marine genetic resources and the other on operational oceanographic activities – to examine the strengths and limits of UNCLOS and its marine scientific research regime in regulating certain “modern” ocean data collection activities. \nThe thesis concludes that although different opinions exist on the legal classification of some specific ocean data collection activities and challenges exist in implementing certain substantive provisions, UNCLOS and its marine scientific research regime to a large extent still provide an appropriate legal framework for regulating new forms of ocean data collection activities.
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 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 ».