Legal Status of the Northern Sea Route of the Russian Federation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article addresses to the key issues of the legal status of the Northern Sea Route in the historical perspective and in accordance with the Russian legislation. It contains the comparative characteristic of the Russian approach to this issue and the Canada´s rule-making activity in this area. It describes the characteristic features of the legal status of the internal waters, exclusive economic zone and some arctic straits of Russia in this context. Gives an answer to the question of its correlation with the norms of contemporary international law of the sea and, in particular, with the UN Convention of 1982. In this regard, the paper emphasizes that relevant Russian and Canadian legislation should be treated as lex specialis in relation to the regulation of navigation in the Arctic coastal areas that provide for higher navigation standards and requirements as compared to the international norms of international law of the sea. It is concluded that the integrity and specificity of the legal status of the Northern Sea Route, as well as the Russia´s ability to control using of it can be justified as by a logistic unity of this national transport communication of Russia and by features of the region, where it passes. Indicated the need for further development of regional and international cooperation in the Arctic and for creation of international instruments defining its terms and content. Here lies the key to the peaceful and effective use of resources and spaces of the Arctic taking into consideration the national interests of Russia and other Arctic countries.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".