Bibliographic record
Abstract
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] The Arctic has always been a place apart. It is unique for its climate and geography: for natural phenomena such as the midnight sun and the Northern Lights, as well as the creatures and the cultures which have evolved there. Throughout human history, it has been viewed with reverence as a special and mysterious place where unique rules apply. However, global warming has begun to reveal the secrets of the Arctic, lifting the shroud of ice, which has veiled the region for millennia, and opening it to ever-greater traffic. That geographical opening has been mirrored by geopolitical changes. Hitherto, the Arctic states have displayed an enviable record of cooperation, dialogue and peaceful resolution of disputes. However, increased access to the region has also brought the risk of increased tensions there. Russia's illegal actions in Ukraine have gravely heightened that risk. Like the ice, which has dominated the Arctic for thousands of years, the regional peace of recent decades can no longer be taken for granted. This article will examine how that peace was built through the determination of all the Arctic states to avoid confrontation and promote cooperation. It will identify the main factors that challenge it: Russia's growing militarization of the region and the increasing danger of disputes from beyond the Arctic being imported into it. Finally, it will suggest a way for the West, and NATO in particular, to respond through the development of an Arctic strategy aimed at deterring military threats. The Arctic Model: Subject to the Law Norway and Russia scored a striking diplomatic success in 2010: after 40 years of negotiation, they finally agreed on the delimitation of their maritime boundaries. In light of the current crisis in Ukraine, it is ironic that the Maritime Delimitation Treaty was seen as the herald of a new era of cooperation between the West and Russia. However, the agreement exemplifies the painstaking and rules-based approach on which relations in the Arctic have been built. While Rudyard Kipling once wrote in The Rhyme of the Three Sealers that there's never a law of God or man runs north of Fifty-Three degrees north, the modern Arctic has been subjected to international law by the explicit choice of Arctic countries. This is a uniquely Arctic model, and it has been uniquely successful. That choice is reflected in policy documents, published both by individual nations and multilateral organizations. On the international level, the five states that share the coastline of the Arctic Ocean--Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the United States--signed a far-reaching agreement in 2008. Named after the city in Greenland where it was signed, the Ilulissat Declaration committed the Arctic nations to resolving issues of jurisdiction and sovereignty through existing legal mechanisms based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS). On the national level, all five have issued Arctic strategy documents, which reflect a number of basic goals and principles: a. A peaceful, safe, and secure Arctic, including the resolution of maritime boundary disputes in accordance with international law, enhanced maritime safety and surveillance, and enhanced cooperation in the Arctic Council and among the five littoral states. b. Sustainable economic and social development, including the exploitation of new economic opportunities in the Arctic, the extraction of mineral resources under the highest international standards, an increased use of renewable energy sources, the sustainable harvesting of living resources, maintaining a leading international role in research, and promoting Arctic cooperation on human health and social sustainability. c. Environmental protection, including development with respect for the Arctic's vulnerable climate, environment, and nature and cooperation with international partners on climate change and environmental protection. …
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.009 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".