Shippers and Port States between US Unilateralism and Extraterritoriality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
May the individual carrier have the state enforce access to foreign ports unilaterally? Is unilateral retaliation under the purview of the US Federal Maritime Commission an exercise of extraterritoriality, and where does that leave port state authority? First, the article will establish the authority vested in the US Federal Maritime Commission to implement and enforce US ships’ access to ports abroad. Secondly, drawing on US unilateral retaliation against Japan over access to ports, resolved diplomatically in 1997, the article will discuss US unilateralism in shipping. Thirdly, the article will discuss the shape of extraterritoriality, and implications for port state authority. The article builds on and intervenes in literature on the role of Section 301 unilateralism and liberalization of maritime transport in US and in international trade law,([ ]) combined with literature on extraterritoriality in international private law, and on port states in maritime law.([ ]) The legal-empirical analysis fills a gap in scholarship between the fields of international trade law, international private law, and maritime law, and contributes to the existing conceptual framework and literature by introducing “constructive extraterritoriality”. This is particularly important at this time because the world is witnessing a trade war that sees US unilateralism front and center and simultaneously, global governance is seeing an increase in extraterritorial regulations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".