Mare Clausum? Private Rights in the Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the late 1990s, Alaskan native villages claimed parts of the territorial sea in the Gulf of Alaska. At the same time in Australia, clans asserted their possession of submerged land in the Croker Island region of the Northern Territory. In New Zealand, Maori communities contended that they owned the foreshore and the seabed of the Marlborough Sounds. More recently in Canada, the Haida filed suit seeking a declaration of aboriginal title to the Hecate Strait and exclusive economic zone west of the Queen Charlotte Islands. In different jurisdictions, these cases have pit the sovereignty of national governments against the private rights and internal governance of indigenous communities. Around the world, they have thrown into question the vitality of aboriginal entitlements and public rights in a peculiar juridical space: the ocean. Although indigenous peoples' claims to land and internal waters have long been part of the legal horizon in America and the Commonwealth, those to the ocean and seabed are comparatively novel. In this chapter, which will appear in the forthcoming book, Legal Aspects of Aboriginal Business Development, I analyze legal issues which have arisen, and are likely to arise, in recent offshore claims in Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and Canada. The chapter is comparative in nature, but seeks to be faithful to the local circumstances of each jurisdiction, in particular to the different conceptions of aboriginal title and aboriginal rights in each country. It draws on the author's research and practice and will be useful for those seeking a transnational understanding of the state of offshore aboriginal title.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".