The Obligations of States to Cooperate under the <i>United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the obligation of States to cooperate under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The authors analyse all the relevant provisions of the Convention in order to determine the nature and scope of such an obligation. The obligation to cooperate thus enshrined is intricate in nature insofar as it has several facets. This intricacy is reflected in a range of duties to cooperate expressed in a variety of phrases. The latter are sometimes mandatory, sometimes hortatory. In some cases, cooperation is even optional for States Parties. Therefore, the article adopts an extensive approach to the obligation to cooperate. The latter includes the obligation to exchange information and the obligation to negotiate or consult. In this respect, the obligation to cooperate is tricky in nature. On the one hand, the obligation to exchange information is complex because it includes two mandatory sub-obligations: the obligation of publicity and the obligation to notify. On the other hand, there is an ambivalent obligation to negotiate or consult. The article further examines the semantic diversity of relevant UNCLOS provisions, the pursuit of special States’ interests and the paucity of coercive measures against States as potential hindrances to the performance of the obligation to cooperate. The authors recommend solutions to overcome such hindrances. Good faith execution, the reconciliation of State interests with community interests, and the use of countermeasures to induce compliance are respective solutions to these limitations.
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 | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".