Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is a study of the interpretation of open-textured international treaty terms and a doctrinal analysis of the undefined, open-textured term “due regard” under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The focus is on UNCLOS Articles 87(2), 56(2) and 58(3) under which a state is to have “due regard” to — or, to balance — the rights, duties and freedoms of other states when it exercises its own rights, duties and freedoms. Relevant rules of international treaty interpretation set out in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties are considered with emphasis on doctrinal debates as to when and how preparatory work (travaux preparatoires, a treaty’s negotiation record, or legislative history) may be used as a treaty interpretive aid. An exhaustive examination of judicial interpretations of the UNCLOS on this point confirms that recourse to preparatory work is prevalent in the judicial interpretation of open-textured terms under the UNCLOS. Next, “due regard” is interpreted with reference to the term’s ordinary meaning and context and in light of the UNCLOS’s object and purpose — and, on the basis that “due regard” is an open-textured, ambiguous or obscure UNCLOS term, using legislative history to inform and confirm an understanding of its meaning. Finally, judicial interpretations and applications of “due regard” are examined. The interpretive conclusions are that the duty of “due regard” signifies (a) a relationship based on legal equality, and (b) the shift from traditional laissez-faire freedoms of the seas to a comprehensive, more heavily normative legal order under the UNCLOS. The practical consequence of the first is that no state enjoys priority in any ocean use conflict beyond the territorial sea simply on the basis of its interests being either sovereign or based on freedoms of the high seas. The practical consequences of the second are that “due regard” is a more heavily normative and narrower standard than its predecessor “reasonable regard”, and, because it encompasses obligations to the interests of the international community, any specific application of “due regard” must always include ecological considerations, howsoever to be weighted.
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 | 0.027 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.079 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".