The Gulf Of Maine Boundary Dispute And Transboundary Management Challenges: Lessons To Be Learned
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One might be cynical about the usefulness of trying to draw legal guidance from a judicial determination of a United States-Canada dispute admitted by the judges themselves to be geographically unique. As stated by the majority of the judges in the Case Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Gulf of Maine Case) decision:\n"Although the practice is still rather sparse, owing to the relative newness of the question, it too is there to demonstrate that each specific case is, in the final analysis, different from all the others, that it is monotypic and that, more often than not, the most appropriate criteria, and the method or combination of methods most likely to yield a result consonant with what the law indicates, can only be determined in relation to each particular case and its specific characteristics."\nHowever, this Article, after providing a brief historical overview of the Gulf of Maine dispute, suggests six general lessons to be extracted from the Gulf of Maine Case. Those lessons include: the utility of binding dispute resolution and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Chamber procedure; the flexibility in establishing the parameters for binding dispute resolution; the possible linkability of a binding dispute resolution agreement with other marine management and entitlement issues; the possible variability of maritime boundary claims over time; the divisibility of the line drawing task; and the advisability of pursuing the binding dispute resolution alternative.\nTwo additional lessons have emerged in the wake of the case. First is the continuity of transboundary ocean and coastal governance challenges, even after an ocean boundary is drawn. Second is the evolutionary nature of maritime boundary methodology where subsequent cases have further clarified the rather murky delimitation approach set out in the Gulf of Maine Case.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".