Bibliographic record
Abstract
The law of delimitation has been one of the major research topics in the modern law of the sea.It mainly covers ways of delimiting overlapping areas of the sea between States with opposite or adjacent coasts.The task of making maritime boundaries is, however, time-consuming and sometimes even politically impossible.The following examples show how difficult it usually is.The process of delimitation lasted from 1964 to 1971 in the cases of the continental shelf in the North Sea between the Federal Republic of Germany and Denmark and the Netherlands. 1 Canada and the United States submitted the dispute concerning the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine to a Chamber of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1981 after five years of intensive high-level negotiations and the Chamber rendered its judgment in 1984. 2 The delimitation agreement between Argentina and Chile concerning the Beagle Channel was concluded in 1984, 17 years after Chile had submitted the issue to arbitration in 1967. 3he Aegean Sea continental shelf delimitation issue between Greece and Turkey over which the ICJ declared that it had no jurisdiction in 1978 still awaits solution. 4ccording to Professor Gerald Blake at the University of Durham, the number of potential maritime boundaries in the world is 434 and only 150 of them had been agreed in whole or in part as of mid-1999. 5 This means that only 34.5% of the potential maritime boundaries have been solved at least in part and that the remaining 65.5% still await delimitation.Thus follows the important question of how to handle the relations between States with opposite or adjacent coasts when there is no maritime boundary in place.This book focuses on the legal problems arising from the absence of maritime boundaries between States with adjacent or opposite coasts and on how to deal with the respective rights and duties of the States concerned before the ultimate delimitation of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ)/continental shelf can take place.
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) | 0.493 | 0.049 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".