Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scientific advances and technological developments drive transformative changes in how, where and by whom, ocean data collection activities can be conducted. These advances present opportunities to enhance knowledge and deliver benefits. However, they also bring new challenges for the applicable legal regime, particularly where the legal classification of the activities concerned is unclear. As “a constitution for the oceans”, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) aims at settling “all issues relating to the law of the sea”, including those concerning ocean data collection activities. Nevertheless, in several instances, UNCLOS provisions do not provide sufficient indications as to the legal classification of certain ocean data collection activities. A prominent example is provided by marine scientific research. Although the Convention includes a whole part on marine scientific research, it does not contain a definition of this term. As a result, the scope of activities covered by the term “marine scientific research”, and hence the scope of regulation of the UNCLOS marine scientific research regime, remain unclear or controversial. This has led to different opinions on the relationship between some specific ocean data collection activities and marine scientific research. The problem of legal classification of ocean data collection activities becomes even more complicated along with the technological advances in ocean data collection methods and means. \nThis dissertation therefore seeks to identify the appropriate legal framework(s) for “modern” ocean data collection activities. The main research question of this research is formulated as: \nTo what extent do UNCLOS and its marine scientific research regime regulate “modern” ocean data collection activities, and through which regulatory arrangements might any gaps for regulation in the Convention be filled? \nTo answer the research question, the present research is divided into six substantive chapters that constitute two parts. The first part (Chapters 2 to 5) sets out the legal framework for the regulation of ocean data collection activities and assesses how the framework has operated. In the process, UNCLOS provisions pertinent to the regulation of ocean data collection activities, subsequent State practice concerning ocean data collection, and rules contained in other international conventions concerning ocean data collection are examined. Special attention has been paid to the criteria for the legal classification of various forms of ocean data collection activities and the implications for their regulation. The second part (Chapters 6 and 7) contextualizes the observations made in the first part by carrying out two specific case studies – one on access to marine genetic resources and the other on operational oceanographic activities – to examine the strengths and limits of UNCLOS and its marine scientific research regime in regulating certain “modern” ocean data collection activities. \nThe thesis concludes that although different opinions exist on the legal classification of some specific ocean data collection activities and challenges exist in implementing certain substantive provisions, UNCLOS and its marine scientific research regime to a large extent still provide an appropriate legal framework for regulating new forms of ocean data collection activities.
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) | 0.003 | 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".