Equitable marine carbon dioxide removal: the legal basis for interstate benefit-sharing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR) deployment strategies appear likely to involve the use of common ocean resources to generate financial benefit for mCDR developers. An important consideration for the future design of an equitable mCDR governance regime is the distribution of those benefits between states, particular between developed and developing states. This paper addresses the legal basis for inter-state benefit-sharing arrangements arising from mCDR activities through an analysis of existing inter-state benefit-sharing arrangements in international resource regimes. The paper identifies a set of key conditions that are present and justify the imposition of benefit-sharing between states. Specifically, claims for inter-state benefit-sharing are legally justified where the resources exploited are located in areas beyond national jurisdiction; the resource opportunities are finite; and the ability to access the resource opportunities are constrained by technological and financial capacity. These conditions will most likely be present for many deployment scenarios for key mCDR technologies. In presenting an argument in favour of inter-state benefit-sharing, this paper seeks to provide a more complete understanding of the equitable and legal dimensions of distributing the economic and non-economic benefits from mCDR activities.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".