Sustainable and Sound: First Principles for Addressing Maritime Jurisdictional Issues and Disputes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores a number of diverse but closely inter-related topics relating to maritime jurisdiction. Assuming that two or more states which are party to such a dispute, certain inflexible principles apply. The point is made that the law of the sea is a part of international law, not an autonomous subject. Its cornerstone, the un Convention of 1982, must therefore be read, interpreted and applied like any other international agreement. Parties to the Convention are bound by its provisions, and, in general, it is not up to them to insert words or meanings to suit themselves. Similarly, international law has rules on treaty interpretation, which should guide states in designing their marine policies. The paper considers reliance on history in the context of international law, and associated issues. It concludes with a number of propositions based on principle, general and specific. Throughout, maintaining law and order at sea as the optimum means of advancing the sustainable development of the oceans and all their resources, as well as the preservation and protection of the marine environment is a constant theme.
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 | 0.029 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.078 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".