Legal-economic regime of the Russian Arctic region in the international legal environment: evolution and development pathways
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Arctic vector in world policies is escalating, no doubt largely because of the predicted increase in the region’s involvement in global economic processes. One of the components of this process – definition of the legal status of the Arctic Ocean, is now in an active phase. The discord now seen in the establishment of international legal arrangements in the Arctic is due to: the international legal custom in the region, special conditions for economic activity in the Arctic region, emergence of new economic stakeholders in the region, global environmental challenges. For Arctic coastal states, like Russia, interests in the Arctic are of vital importance. Some countries, such as Russia, Canada and Norway, are interested in maintaining continuity in the international customary law, whereas some others, like China, Germany, or South Korea, are eager to introduce new means of legal regulation. This article suggests recommendations on further improving the national legislation and the instruments for managing the Arctic regional economic policy. Important considerations here are Russia’s strategic interests in the region, along with harmonization of relationships with other stakeholders, and mitigation of environmental risks. To this end, we have analysed the background for the formation of the international legal custom in the Arctic region, current trends in international law, valid economic grounds for countries to realize their interests in the Arctic. Special focus is on Russian economic policy in view of the challenging situation in the country’s national economy and its international affairs.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.003 |
| 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".