Navigating between freedom of navigation and coastal State jurisdiction: An analysis of Russia’s participation in the negotiation of the IMO’s mandatory Polar Code, 2009-2015, from a deliberative theory framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a response to the increase in human activity reliant on navigation in polar areas and concomitant challenges and risks, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) developed mandatory regulations in the form of the International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code). The Polar Code aims to enhance ship safety and environmental protection in Arctic and Antarctic waters. In so doing, it potentially affects the balance set in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea between the two defining principles of the law of the sea: freedom of navigation and coastal State jurisdiction. The Polar Code could both influence that balance and be influenced by interested States. The research in this thesis adds to our understanding of how the international community navigates between such deeply rooted principles, especially in technical international organisations such as the IMO, largely by placing one key actor in its research focus – the Russian Federation.\nBased on deliberative theory and analysing the IMO’s documentary material, this thesis examines Russia’s contribution to the IMO’s international regulatory process vis-à-vis national areas of interest. This research shows Russia being pulled between the two competing principles and mostly following its self-interest instead of utilising its experience in Arctic shipping to the benefit of international community. In so doing, Russia is contrasted with Canada, another State with major material and jurisdictional stakes in the field of Arctic navigation. Finally, this thesis shows how actors, when creating international regulations, deal with the conflict of the defining principles of the law of the sea by avoiding direct debate on them. At the same time, these principles still affect the IMO’s decision-making process in different ways, which in turn opens the possibility to incremental changes in the interpretation of the international 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 | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".