THE MARITIME ZONES OF EAST AFRICAN STATES IN THE LAW OF THE SEA: BENEFITS GAINED, OPPORTUNITIES MISSED
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (LOS Convention) has been in force since 16 November 1994 and on 10 December 2007, it will be a quarter century since its adoption in Montego Bay, Jamaica. Many African coastal states were among the most active supporters of a new international law of the sea. Indeed, they pre-empted the adoption and entry into force of the LOS Convention by claiming the national maritime zones and jurisdictional benefits conferred by that instrument. For many of those states, the LOS Convention constituted an opportunity to break away from their colonial past and to engage in a new kind of regime-building expected to contribute to the economic and social advancement of all peoples, effectively a new international economic order. The ocean space and marine resources adjacent to the coastal state were perceived as constituting an opportunity to further national economic development. East African states, in particular Kenya and Tanzania, were among the most active in developing a new framework for national maritime zones and the type and extent of authority enjoyed therein by coastal states, and to a much lesser extent, by land-locked states. Twenty-five years hence, it is appropriate to enquire how African states, and in particular East African states, have legislated the maritime zone claims permissible under the LOS Convention to maximise their entitlements while being compliant with the new legal framework. At the time the LOS Convention
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
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".