Extraction and jurisdiction: forms of law and the Antarctic Treaty System*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article joins a conversation that examines the dynamics of extraction in global space and their relationship to practices of authorisation in international law. The article offers an analysis of a specific historical debate that occurred through the negotiation of the since-abandoned Convention on the Regulation of Antarctica Mineral Resource Activities (CRAMRA). The debate was largely over whether the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) should continue to govern Antarctica. This article argues that while extracting mineral resources from Antarctica has now been foreclosed, the jurisdictional form that remains is part of the enabling legal infrastructure that patterns contemporary global extraction. Specifically, this jurisdictional form entails the reassertion of international legal authority grounded in colonial territorial claims, and a reappropriation of the Common Heritage of Mankind principle (CHM) to appeal to a construction of universality that repeats the familiar colonial move of locating ‘humanity’ largely in the Global North. In the contested times of the Anthropocene, discussion of the ATS rightly celebrates an instance of restraining corporate extraction of hydrocarbons from an unstable climactic ecosystem. However, we could also take account of how the ATS’ jurisdictional form could contribute to contemporary global extraction and its highly unequal consequences.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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 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".