Bibliographic record
Abstract
On August 3, 2015, Russia passed its partially revised submission to the UN Commission on the limits of the continental shelf (CLCS), specifying its claim on the continental shelf in the Arctic Ocean. Consequently, a huge area of an overlap with Danish interests emerged, but its final contours will become eventually clear after publication of the Canadian submission to the CLCS, anticipated in the next few years. Being adherent to principles of the Ilulissat declaration 2008 these three stakeholder countries have to find a peaceful and mutually acceptable way for a resolution of emerging controversies over the Arctic shelf. CLCS has no last word here, because its authority is limited to delivering an expert assessment on whether a submission is well-founded or not. Thus, a final decision could be reached only through direct negotiations. This paper starts with the analysis of Russia’s 2015 submission to the CLCS and its perception by expert and political communities in the West. Then we proceed to formulation of the most likely scenario of negotiations on the Arctic shelf delimitation between Russia, Denmark and Canada by analyzing their core interests, positions and possible bargaining tactics. As the central part of the Arctic Ocean seems not well suited for sustainable economic use even in the long term, we assume that the countries’ aspirations for the continental shelf in this area are driven predominantly by considerations of political prestige and strategy. The most common tactical instrument in the contest for the Arctic shelf will be the tactics of increased demands. Denmark has already used it in the submission passed to the CLCS in December 2014. There are good reasons to expect that Canada will follow this way, too, by extending its claims not only on the Alpha ridge but also on the North Pole and Mendeleev ridge. In this case a second huge overlapping area in the Arctic Ocean will emerge. Russia has been much more modest in using the tactics of increased demands, as its 2015 CLCS claim demonstrates just tiny extensions in comparison with the initial CLCS claim submitted by the Russian Federation in December 2001. This indicates that Russian diplomacy is going to hold a firm line in the Arctic shelf delimitation, being ready to make only minimum concessions to Denmark and Canada. This hypothesis is supported by the analysis of relevant provisions contained in both versions of the Russian Arctic Strategy (2008 and 2013 editions), the Naval Doctrine of the Russian Federation 2015, as well as in public speeches of President V. Putin. Still, it is highly unlikely that harsh bargaining style will lead to a mutually acceptable solution. Instead, such solution should be a result of interest alignment and be considered as fair enough by all stakeholder states. A possible framework for compromise could be a neutralization of the North Pole, which will be selected as a focal point where all extended continental shelf zones are meeting together.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.084 | 0.009 |
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".