Arctic Law: The Challenges of Governance in the Changing Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This panel was convened at 10:45 am, Friday, April 5, by its moderator, Austen Parrish of Southwestern Law School, who introduced the panelists: Betsy Baker of Vermont Law School; Suzanne Lalonde of the University of Montreal; Peter Oppenheimer of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and Don Rothwell of the Australian National University. * * Professor Lalonde and Mr. Oppenheimer did not contribute remarks to the Proceedings. Introductory Remarks by Austen Parrish ([dagger]) Good morning and welcome to our panel discussion on Arctic Law. Before we begin, a thank you to the Program Committee, the conference organizers, and the International Environmental Law and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Interest Groups for hosting this panel. For an Annual Meeting focused on International Law in a Multipolar World, it seems particularly apropos to have a panel dedicated to one of the polar regions. The panel's topic is an important one. Tremendous changes are occurring in the far North that implicate key questions for international law and international environmental governance. The Arctic is now the center of a number of international legal and political disputes: energy security, natural resources, and environmental degradation; climate change and its impact on indigenous populations; the remaking of global trade routes; and the delineation of the continental shelf. Degradation of the Arctic environment is particularly a concern as sea ice rapidly diminishes. The concerns have become more pronounced as shipping, tourism, and oil, gas, and mineral extraction activities increase, and as the effects of climate change, including ocean acidification, become better understood. The quickly receding polar ice has also spurred the eight Arctic circumpolar nations and other groups to more closely examine existing governance structures. While cooperation among nations and other groups interested in the Arctic has been considerable, a question remains whether the emerging structure of international environmental governance is capable of responding well to the challenges of the region. Are there gaps in the current Arctic environmental governance regimes? And, if so, how best are those gaps filled? What steps have been taken already? We are extremely fortunate to have a panel of leading experts who bring diverse perspectives--both from the government and the academy, and from Australia, Canada, and the United States--to tackle these questions. Panelists will describe the role of the Arctic Council and its future work and priorities, as well as the work of other key organizations and actors that are struggling to address issues of conservation, management, and governance of Arctic resources. The panel also intends to explore the inter-treaty linkages in the Arctic that form a foundation for environmental governance, and will touch upon the unique environmental and human rights issues facing the indigenous populations. As you will see, the panelists have differing perspectives on how various international legal mechanisms have helped (or perhaps hindered) the evolution of Arctic environmental governance. We will begin with each speaker making a brief statement. After those statements, the panelists will discuss and debate key questions related to Arctic environmental governance, and finally we will open the discussion to include the audience. We are fortunate that many in our audience bring considerable expertise in Arctic matters and international law. I'm pleased to see in the audience's first row Hans Corell, former Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and the Legal Counsel of the United Nations; Alan H. Kessel, Legal Adviser to the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade; Ashley Roach, formerly of the Office of Legal Advisor of the U.S. Department of State; and Timo Koivurova, Director of the Northern Institute for Environmental and Minority Law, Arctic Centre/ University of Lapland, among many others. …
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 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 | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".