This brief presents a novel learning scheme for categorical data based on radial basis function (RBF) networks. The proposed approach replaces the numerical vectors known as RBF centers with categorical tuple centers, and employs specially designed measures for calculating the distance between the center and the input tuples. Furthermore, a fast noniterative categorical clustering algorithm is proposed to accomplish the first stage of RBF training involving categorical center selection, whereas the weights are calculated through linear regression. The method is applied on 22 categorical data sets and compared with several different learning schemes, including neural networks, support vector machines, naïve Bayes classifier, and decision trees. Results show that the proposed method is very competitive, outperforming its rivals in terms of predictive capabilities in the majority of the tested cases.
At the international law level, the regulation of offshore energy projects does not fall neatly into one global regime. On the contrary, it is subject to a plethora of overlapping legal regimes, including the law of the sea, international environmental law, international economic law, and international energy law. The present article addresses the question how regime interaction affects investment protection in the offshore energy sector. Specifically, it investigates whether cross-fertilization between regimes also has ‘positive’ effects on the protection of investments in offshore energy or whether fragmentation consists of both a perceived and actual challenge. We submit that, even though regime interaction poses challenges to investment protection, the influence of the overlapping legal frameworks is not necessarily a ‘threat’ to investment protection. To the contrary, regime interaction can contribute to widen the objectives of international investment law.
The international environmental regulation of all types of energy generation activities at sea is first and foremost anchored to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). However, both at the global and regional levels, UNCLOS is complemented by an array of evolving environmental agreements. These normative developments can put flesh on the bare bones of the general (due diligence) obligation of States to protect the marine environment with regard to offshore energy activities. Parallel to binding obligations under environmental agreements, there are a variety of non‐binding instruments, which can also play a key role in enriching the content of prevention obligations. Depending on their source, their form and the procedure by which they are adopted, these non‐binding pronouncements may become legally relevant as interpretative guidance or standard of proof that a State has exercised due diligence. In this context, the article posits that synergies among environmental instruments and the interaction of non‐binding instruments with binding rules of international law can fill the current legal gaps and strengthen the international legal standards for the regulation of this environmentally sensitive sector.
Initially, international investment law and international law on the protection of the marine environment were two branches that developed separately. As these international regimes mature, they often speak to the same facts, bringing about their ever-increasing normative interaction, way before any disputes arise. The regulation of investments in offshore energy production is chosen as a case study because it exemplifies how these two bodies of international law can interact. The article does not conceptualize these two international regimes as inherently antagonistic but instead highlights their potential complementarity. Yet, it is primarily the issue of normative conflicts between those two regimes which has generated heated scholarly debates. Against the backdrop of sweeping critiques about the potential ‘regulatory chill’ of international investment agreements and their investor-State dispute settlement mechanism, this contribution examines whether arbitral tribunals have interpreted and applied investment rules in a fashion that can unduly restrict the discretion of host States to honour their marine environmental obligations. First, it explores why and how international investment law and marine environmental law interact and influence each other’s implementation. In a second step, the article investigates the impact (if any) of investment obligations on the discretion of host States to comply with their marine environmental protection obligations. Adopting a forward-looking perspective, it finally enquires into the potential impact of the reformed provisions under new generation IIAs on the right and duty of States to take all necessary measures to protect the marine environment against pollution from offshore energy production activities.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.