New Developments in Russian Regulation of Navigation on the Northern Sea Route
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The regime of navigation on the Northern Sea Route (NSR) is still largely based on legislation adopted by the Soviet Union, and features certain deviations in the way Russia’s international legal rights and obligations are implemented. In recent years the Russian Federation has demonstrated interest in revising NSR legislation with the preparation of one single comprehensive Federal Act on the NSR, and also a Federal Act to introduce amendments to pre-existing legislation. The latter option has gained the support of legislators, as the newly promulgated Federal Law on the NSR, dated July 28th 2012, No. 132 FZ, established grounds for further specific regulatory acts to have effect on commercial navigation on the waters of the route. The primary purpose of this article is to discuss the processes leading up to this long-awaited decision, as well as the implications of the new legislation for navigation on the NSR. The creative legal ambiguity of the Russian domestic legislation has historically allowed for divergent arguments, voiced by Russian scholars, in respect to the assumed legal basis for the Russian extended authority to regulate navigation on the NSR and the limitations thereof. Alternative views have provided grounds for different legislative proposals and for heated discussions leading to the adoption of the most recent law. This article will trace the development of the legal thinking in Russia with respect to the allocation of jurisdiction on the NSR.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it