Territorial Claims in North Polar Maritime Zone in View of International Security
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main feature of the political relations, developed among the coastal states with strong interests over the North Pole region and the Arctic Ocean, have been the frequent interstate disputes over the last fifty years, as well as the efforts of these Arctic states during this period to cooperate in so that the sovereignty and sovereign rights of each coastal state over this region turn into a common benefit for the entire international community. Consequently, sovereignty and sovereign rights are considered fundamental factors for interstate relations in the Arctic Ocean region, for which coastal states have historically been willing to engage in political or military conflicts. The Arctic Ocean, including North Pole maritime region, is governed by customary international law and the law of the sea, which are largely represented by UNCLOS (1982) and the Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea (1958). Four Arctic coastal states, Canada, Norway, Denmark, and Russia have ratified these international conventions, while the US accepts its main provisions as norms of customary international law, but is also in the process of ratifying UNCLOS. The purpose of this article is to analyze and discuss the legal, practical, and political situation regarding the delimitation of maritime zones in the North Pole region and the Arctic Ocean, addressing interstate disputes over the major economic, strategic and geopolitical interests of this maritime area in the context of international security.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".