Carving up the Arctic: The Continental Shelf Process between International Law and Geopolitics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new chapter in Arctic relations opened when Danish diplomats submitted five boxes of evidence to the UN's Commission of the Limits of the Continental Shelve (CLCS) in New York.Denmark's claim to 895,000 km 2 of Arctic seabed that includes the geographical North Pole surprised analysts by going all the way from Greenland's northern boundary to the border of the Russian EEZ.The claim is likely to overlap with future Canadian and Russian claims.Observers soon warned that this could lead to an unfortunate Russian reaction and spark tensions between Moscow and Copenhagen.T his article examines how the Canadian, Danish, and Russian claims may spark tensions between the Arctic states, based on a review of the Arctic studies literature.How does the UNCLOS process fit within the political dynamics of the region and does the Ukraine crisis make a peaceful agreement less likely?The article argues that the claims process is largely disconnected from the geopolitical logic of the region and there is no reason to expect it to cause significant tensions between the High North states.As several authors have pointed out, most resources are located outside of the disputed areas.Instead, the process is driven by domestic concerns.Ownership of the Arctic is symbolically important in all three states, albeit in different ways.Whereas Arctic ownership is crucial for both Canadian and Russian audiences, in Denmark the claims process has more to do with the complex Danish-Greenlandic relationship.However, the Ukraine crisis may disrupt this peaceful state of affairs.The crisis may alter the Putin regime's power base and thus force Moscow to become more attentive to d omestic voices that call for a more bellicose approach to 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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".