{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024242424242424242, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010606060606060607, 'mean_word_length': 4.747826086956522, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Curious Case of Article 281: A “Super” Provision within UNCLOS?

This article discusses the issue of treaty regimes in parallel to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in respect of peaceful settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention. The duality in relevancy of such disputes to two treaties at the same time would have begged the question about which treaty should be applied to settle them, but UNCLOS has a clear, conflict-of-law style rules in place to address the question. Article 281(1) is one such rule, and, with its exclusionary effect, stands out as a super provision of the Convention.