The Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks in light of existing marine liability regimes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study presented herein analyses the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks (WRC) in light of existing civil liability regimes relating to the same area of environmental law, namely&semic protection of the marine environment from damages arising from maritime activities. Through presentation and analysis of the most influential and exemplifying civil liability regimes for protection of the marine environment from damages arising from maritime activities, a coherent picture of this diversified body of norms is painted. The rather mechanical process whereby common characteristics of the treaties establishing such regimes provides the reader with descriptive introductions to such civil liability regimes and establishes a light in which the WRC is analysed. The analysis of the WRC in light of existing civil liability regimes enlightens a difference in approach&semic the inclusion of obligations in the WRC to undertake response measures - thus a development where obligations to undertake response measures are included in treaties establishing civil liability regimes. Since the group of treaties within which the WRC falls - treaties concerning protection of the marine environment from ship-source pollution - is uniform, and no treaty but the most recent, the WRC, deviates from this uniformity, the difference in approach is meant to be deliberate and signifies a development within international environmental law in a wider sense. Since protection of the marine environment from damages arising from maritime activities is a particularly well-developed area of international environmental law, it is argued that the developments within this area of law are relevant and of significance for international environmental law generally. Through examples from civil liability regimes relevant to the context within which the WRC exists, this development is exemplified and analysed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.013 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".