The Threat of Oil Pollution in the Malacca Strait: Arguing for a Broad Interpretation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

The threat of oil pollution in the world\u27s busiest waterway, the Malacca Strait, and the legal complications that surround it continues to be a controversial issue despite international law reforms. Recent accidents have demonstrated that current measures to prevent pollution are inadequate and that traditional methods of enforcement are ineffective. Unfortunately, there is a tension between international law of the sea provisions governing pollution control in the Malacca Strait, and the desires of bordering coastal States to regulate vessels trafficking the Strait so that accident risk is minimized. Moreover, there is tension between UNCLOS provisions prohibiting the assessment of fees to use international straits, such as the Malacca Strait, and coastal State desires to raise funds to pay for preventive pollution control mechanisms. This Comment argues in favor of a broad interpretation of UNCLOS provisions in order to allow effective Vessel Traffic Services enforcement and financing which could help reduce the risk of collisions

A dialogical model of case law dynamics

We describe a set of dialogue moves which give a procedure to model the development of case law over a sequence of cases

Communicating about risk: strategies for situations where public concern is high but the risk is low.

In this article, we summarise research that identifies best practice for communicating about hazards where the risk is low but public concern is high. We apply Peter Sandman’s ‘risk = hazard + outrage’ formulation to these risks, and review factors associated with the amplification of risk signals. We discuss the structures that determine the success of risk communication strategies, such as the capacity for early communication to ‘capture’ the dominant representation of risk issues, the importance of communicating uncertainty, and the usefulness of engaging with communities. We argue that, when facing trade-offs in probable outcomes from communication, it is always best to choose strategies that maintain or build trust, even at the cost of initial overreactions. We discuss these features of successful risk communication in relation to a range of specific examples, particularly opposition to community water fluoridation, Ebola, and routine childhood immunisation

Natural regeneration of wetlands under climate change

Wetlands are increasingly valuable under climate change in terms of their ecological functions, ecosystem services, and biodiversity. Simultaneously, wetlands are hotspots for anthropogenic activity due to their high soil fertility and water supply, and have been subject to significant modification, degradation, and staggering losses. With climate change having increasing impacts on ecosystems globally, the need for wetland restoration is rapidly growing. Natural regeneration, whereby vegetation is allowed to regrow via propagules already present within the landscape, provides a cost-effective and large-scale approach to restoration for many, but not, all wetlands. This paper emphasises the importance of natural regeneration of wetland ecosystems as an effective restoration approach under climate change. We discuss drivers and barriers of natural regeneration of wetlands under climate change along with implications for management approaches. Drivers of wetland natural regeneration are depicted along with their interactions, displaying a range of abiotic and biotic factors that influence ecosystem change. Key adaption approaches to maintain and promote natural regeneration of wetlands under climate change include integrated land and water management, protecting and promoting key relevant biotic and abiotic processes within landscapes, and reconsidering current exotic species management strategies. Most importantly, however, natural regeneration should be recognised as an important and viable restoration approach under climate change in order to meet restoration demand and promote landscape resilience to changing conditions

An explainable approach to deducing outcomes in european court of human rights cases using ADFs

In this paper we present an argumentation-based approach to representing and reasoning about a domain of law that has previously been addressed through a machine learning approach. The domain concerns cases that all fall within the remit of a specific Article within the European Court of Human Rights. We perform a comparison between the approaches, based on two criteria: ability of the model to accurately replicate the decision that was made in the real life legal cases within the particular domain, and the quality of the explanation provided by the models. Our initial results show that the system based on the argumentation approach improves on the machine learning results in terms of accuracy, and can explain its outcomes in terms of the issue on which the case turned, and the factors that were crucial in arriving at the conclusion

Summa Contra Ontologiam

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/11896548_37Revised Selected Papers of EDBT 2006 Workshops PhD, DataX, IIDB, IIHA, ICSNW, QLQP, PIM, PaRMA, and Reactivity on the Web, Munich, Germany, March 26-31, 2006This paper is a critical analysis of the concept of ontology thus as it is used in contemporary computing science. It identifies three main problems with such a concept, two of which are intrinsic to it and one of which is extrinsic, so to speak, being related to the use that of ontology is made in applications. The first problem with ontology is that the only accepted definition of its main artifact is teleological rather than structural as it would be proper in computing science. The second problem is that claiming that ontology is in any way a semantic discipline requires such a limited and outdated notion of semantic to be to all practical purposes useless. The third and final problem is that the limitations and misconceptions of ontology might make it a limiting factor, rather than a help, for many of the applications for which it is sought. The article concludes that a profound reconsideration of the relation between computers and semantics might be overdue

Analysis of Dialogical Argumentation via Finite State Machines

Dialogical argumentation is an important cognitive activity by which agents exchange arguments and counterarguments as part of some process such as discussion, debate, persuasion and negotiation. Whilst numerous formal systems have been proposed, there is a lack of frameworks for implementing and evaluating these proposals. First-order executable logic has been proposed as a general framework for specifying and analysing dialogical argumentation. In this paper, we investigate how we can implement systems for dialogical argumentation using propositional executable logic. Our approach is to present and evaluate an algorithm that generates a finite state machine that reflects a propositional executable logic specification for a dialogical argumentation together with an initial state. We also consider how the finite state machines can be analysed, with the minimax strategy being used as an illustration of the kinds of empirical analysis that can be undertaken.Comment: 10 page

On spatial adaptivity and interpolation when using the method of lines

The solution of time-dependent partial differential equations with discrete time static remeshing is considered within a method of lines framework. Numerical examples in one and two space dimensions are used to show that spatial interpolation error may have an important impact on the efficiency of integration. Analysis of a simple problem and of the time integration method is used to confirm the experimental results and a computational test for monitoring the impact of this error is derived and tested

The Complexity of Repairing, Adjusting, and Aggregating of Extensions in Abstract Argumentation

We study the computational complexity of problems that arise in abstract argumentation in the context of dynamic argumentation, minimal change, and aggregation. In particular, we consider the following problems where always an argumentation framework F and a small positive integer k are given. - The Repair problem asks whether a given set of arguments can be modified into an extension by at most k elementary changes (i.e., the extension is of distance k from the given set). - The Adjust problem asks whether a given extension can be modified by at most k elementary changes into an extension that contains a specified argument. - The Center problem asks whether, given two extensions of distance k, whether there is a "center" extension that is a distance at most (k-1) from both given extensions. We study these problems in the framework of parameterized complexity, and take the distance k as the parameter. Our results covers several different semantics, including admissible, complete, preferred, semi-stable and stable semantics