The Permanent Court of Arbitration’s Exegesis of the Regime of Islands and China’s Nine-Dash-Line Claims in the South China Sea Arbitration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The big South China Sea is one of the most dangerous hotspot in the world. By words and actions, there are six claimants of the South China Sea. The People’s Republic of China and the Republic of the Philippines are some of them. Each want to control the numerous features and resources in boosting their economic interests. The United Nations was actively involved in the settlement of the disputes for their own security and economic interests. The great ownership question that comes about in this is the rightful owner of the South China Sea which involved the Nine-Dash Line claims by the government of the People’s Republic of China, which laid claims to the Paracel Islands, the Spratly Islands, the Pratas Islands, the Maccles field Bank and the Scarborough Shoal. In the Arbitration between the two parties: China and Philippines, Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was relied upon by the tribunal which gave award on 29th October, 2015 on admissibility and jurisdiction. However the objection that was presented by China was rejected by the tribunal. This was because of the issue of the territorial sovereignty of China in the South China Sea which was not within the jurisdiction of the tribunal. The tribunal found interalia that the submission made by Philippines showed the dispute between the parties putting in mind the Convention interpretation and application. The requirements under article 283 of the Convention were met by the Philippines in regards to the settlement of the dispute. This paper examines the South China Sea arbitration award and the interpretation and the application of the regime of islands under article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
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 | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".