Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article concentrates on two issues articulated by Xu Guangmiao in her article “China's Arctic Interests and Policy: History, Legal Ground and Implementation” published in the same issue of the Journal: Arctic Governance (and particularly the applicability of the "Common Heritage of the Mankind in the Arctic" concept), as well as the concept of the Northern Sea Route “internationalization” based on the navigation freedom principle. Both issues are considered controversial in Russia–China relations. In addressing those issues, the author seeks to separate real and alleged divergences between the two countries. He argues that apparent differences in their particular approaches do not reflect any fundamental divergences and can be transcended if handled pragmatically, with recognition of the sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdictions of coastal states, as well as of the non-Arctic states' rights and responsibilities under the Law of the Sea. In particular, the author argues that there is no controversy surrounding China’s expectation that an Area of the Common Heritage of the Mankind would occur in the central part of the Arctic Ocean as long as the process of the continental shelf outer limits setting by the coastal states in the Arctic Ocean takes place within the procedures established by the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Similarly, China accepts the regulation of vessels traffic alongside the Northern Sea Route based on the Article 234 of the Convention, and would not be able to claim the freedom of transit passage through the NSR straits unless it joined the U.S. claim that the straight baselines drawn by Russia (and Canada) effectively including those straits into their internal sea waters violate the provisions of the Convention. So far, China does not. And as long as the NSR water area remains ice-covered for most of the year, this issue remains of theoretical rather than of practical importance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".