United States Arctic Ocean management & the Law of the Sea Convention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper will provide a brief overview of the international and domestic law and policy that provide the framework for the management of Arctic Ocean resources off the coast of Alaska by the United States. There will be a general discussion of the international legal framework set forth by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as applied to the U.S. management in the Arctic Ocean, including the delicate balance of rights and interests in particular the right of navigation, research and exploration and the right of U.S. exercise of coastal State jurisdiction. To provide the proper international legal context for this discussion, the paper will first provide an overview of the work of the U.S. Baseline Committee which is the decision-making body in the U.S. Government that determines the Baseline from which the limits of all U.S. maritime zones are measured, including a discussion of the U.S. work on its project collecting data regarding the seaward limit of its continental shelf consistent with Article 76. It will also provide a brief overview of the depiction of the limits of the territorial sea, contiguous zone and Exclusive Economic Zone on the official nautical charts of the United States that are produced by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. The United States, Canada, Denmark, Norway and Russia are all interested in determining the limits of their respective continental shelves in the Arctic Ocean. Russia was the first to submit a claim defining its interests in 2001. While the United States has not ratified the Law of the Sea Convention, it is working on collecting the data required for determining the limit of its continental shelf under Article 76 of UNCLOS. The paper will briefly discuss this work including the cooperation between the United States and Canada in the survey and research of their respective continental shelves in the Arctic Ocean. Climate change is having dramatic effects; most notably there is a significant melting of Arctic sea ice in the summer months. This is resulting in new access to ships to explore and exploit resources of the Arctic Ocean and new routes of navigation that may provide more economical and efficient trade and commerce. There is a growing concern over these trends, and the U.S. anticipates an increase in human activity, shipping, and energy development, among other things. These new activities will undoubtedly have significant impacts on the Arctic environment. Increased activity may have other consequences as well. The U.S. is reviewing its Arctic policy and focusing on these changes and their implications for national and homeland security, the mapping of our continental shelf, energy exploration, environmental protection, and conservation of natural resources. This paper addresses how U.S. policies regarding management of its resources in the Arctic Ocean are in a manner consistent with customary international law as reflected in UNCLOS. Finally, cooperation among Arctic states in multilateral organizations will also be a key component of protection of the marine environment and the management of shipping in the Arctic.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.071 | 0.042 |
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".