International Legal Grounds for Drawing by Demark, Norway and Canada Straight Baselines in the Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper summarizes the legal experience of Canada, Denmark (relating to Greenland) and Norway in drawing straight baselines in the Arctic which join the furthest seaward points selected by a relevant coastal state in the context of applicable rules of the Contemporary International Law. The authors of the paper have compiled the basic legal arguments, which were relied upon by the three Arctic Coastal States mentioned above to show the “legal purity” of their straight baselines along the Arctic coasts. Legal evaluation of such a practice of Norway, Canada and Denmark is suggested in the paper in the context of relevant rules of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, 1958, and UNCLOS 1982, and the 1951 Judgment of the ICJ and relevant documents of the ILC. It is noted in the paper that the admissibility of such particularapplication by the three Arctic Coastal States of international legal provisions on baselines is well grounded by the complex of geographical, ecological and historical factors relating to a specific Arctic coast and to its concrete territorial sovereign. The conclusion is suggested that in spite the fact that the US protested against some of the straight baselines along the arctic coasts still the practice of Canada, Denmark and Norway in drawing straight baselines in the Arctic is in full accordance with applicable rules of the Contemporary International Law. It is also shown in the paper that the establishment of such straight baselines has a positive impact on the extent of sovereignty and sovereign rights of each of the respective Arctic Coastal State. Identification and assessment of arguments within international law in favor of establishment of straight baselines in the Arctic ocean - as these arguments were put forward by Denmark, Norway and Canada - has a practical value for the Russian Federation, because in accordance with the current Russian legislation straight baselines are not applied along the most part of its Arctic coast and instead “normal baselines” are established indicating the low-water lines along the major part of its arctic coast . It is concluded also that in such circumstances international legal experience of Canada, Denmark and Norway in drawing straight baselines along its arctic coasts is to be taken into the account by the Russian Federation as well as the legal justification of such straight baselines.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".