Analysis and Potential Alternatives for the Disputed South China Sea from Ocean Governance in the Polar Regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sovereignty claims over insular features and maritime jurisdiction in the South China Sea have been disputed for decades, and a governance regime to address ocean-related issues is urgently needed. This article first introduces the notion of a regime, and examines details of cooperation mechanisms in the Polar Regions. Lessons that can be applied to the South China Sea include that both soft and hard law regimes work to bring States concerned together to cooperate on the “commons” issues even when military conflicts or sovereignty disputes still exist. Consensus among bordering States would be necessary to make the South China Sea a “zone of peace.” Mechanisms that accommodate the various sovereignty claims and freeze existing and new claims to, as well as to prohibit military activities in, the South China Sea are recommended. Lastly, if a cooperative mechanism were to be established in the future, the Arctic regime would be more applicable to the South China Sea than the Antarctic regime due to their geographic nature. Thus, only States bordering the South China Sea should have voting and decision-making rights in the cooperative mechanism. As always, the political will of all parties is paramount to the success of such an endeavor.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".