The article, in the context of the contemporary status of the Arctic, examines the legal and political documents adopted by China, Japan and South Korea in regard to their arctic policy, including those agreed upon by these three States. The alarming reaction to such documents in the Arctic coastal states, firstly, in the USA and Canada, is also considered in the article. Relevant western scholars’ arguments are scrutinized, such as the increase of “China’s military power”; China’s “insatiable appetite” for access to natural resources in the Arctic; the argument that “China seeks to dominate” the Arctic and the situation when “the Arctic Council is split”; the notion that China makes other non-Arctic States create separate legal documents concerning the regime of the Arctic Ocean. The article concludes that the western interpretation of such documents is alarming only in relation to China. The research shows that up till now there are no grounds for such estimations of China’s negative role. However, statements by Chinese officials as cited in the article and some provisions stipulated in “China’s Arctic policy” contradict the common will of the Arctic coastal states in regard to the legal regime of the Arctic Ocean as reflected in the Ilulissat Declaration of 2008. In such a dynamic legal environment, new instruments of collaboration are in demand, which might involve China and other non-Arctic states in maintaining the established legal regime of the Arctic. Thus, the new instruments would deter the creation (with unpredictable consequences) by China, Japan and South Korea of new trilateral acts relating to the status of the Arctic.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article analyzes the current state of doctrine and law enforcement practice on one of the most pressing problems of modern family law — the regime of spouses’ personal property. Currently, there are no serious doctrinal studies on this issue. A uniform practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on some problems has not been established, on others it raises more questions than answers. The authors of the article propose to start from the understanding of marriage as a kind of economic union of a man and a woman and make an attempt to develop an approach to determining the fate of income from the use of personal property of each spouse, as well as the proceeds from the sale of such property, that is understandable and convenient both for the spouses themselves and for third parties entering into property legal relations with the spouses. It seems that the registration of a marriage should lead to the consolidation of any property acquired during the marriage, with the exception of that which is directly listed in the Family Code of the Russian Federation. The authors insist that the exceptions to the general rule are not subject to broad interpretation in this case. Thus, both the income received from the use of the personal assets of each of the spouses, and the proceeds from the sale of such assets, should enter into common joint ownership. This approach does not diminish, however, the right of any of the spouses to demand from the court, when dividing the property, deviations from the principle of equality of the spouses’ shares in the acquired property. This takes into account the contribution of each of them to the creation and augmentation of common property, including through the investment of income received from the use and sale of personal assets.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".