Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This issue of the Australian International Law Journal('AILJ') engages with a challenge that will dominate international law and legal institutions throughout this century--climate change. We are most grateful to the Editor-in-Chief, Dr Ben Saul, for allowing us this opportunity to solicit contributions from leading Australian scholars and practitioners working and researching in the field of international climate law for this special symposium issue of the AlLJ. International law has always been at the centre of responses to climate change. This began in 1988 when the United Nations General Assembly noted that 'climate change is a common concern of mankind' and encouraged the international community to agree on concrete measures to address the problem. (1) The main products of ensuing international legal responses were the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2) (VNFCCC) and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (3) While the UNFCCC articulates fundamental objectives, the most important being to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level which would avoid dangerous climate change, the Kyoto Protocol sought to make material progress towards this objective through specific emissions limitation or reduction targets for industrialised countries. Since these foundation stones for international climate law were first laid, there has been much talk but little action in building a truly effective regime to tackle climate change. This is not least due to the United States' unwillingness, under President George W Bush, to recognise the legitimacy of international climate law, (4) a position which enjoyed Australian support until the change of government in late 2007. The world is now looking to Copenhagen in 2009 when the two-year process of negotiating a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, initiated at the Bali climate change summit in December 2007, will to come to a head. The dramatic disappearance of summer sea ice in the Arctic is in line with recent assessments (5) that dangerous climate change is occurring far more rapidly than anticipated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. (6) However, there is no guarantee that Copenhagen will produce agreement on the massive and urgent cuts in greenhouse gas emissions that arc required to meet the objective of the UNFCCC. In her contribution to this symposium issue, Shirley Scott, one of Australia's foremost scholars of international relations and law, considers whether international law is or can be up to this task. Scott begins from the premise that climate change meets any reasonable description of a crisis, rather than a confectcd emergency or outrage (in this respect we could cite international terrorism, a phenomenon that poses a far more modest challenge to the international order than climate change, though Scott does not single out any specific examples). Scott asks, provocatively, whether international law has in fact been complicit in the climate crisis by facilitating the growth of the global capitalist economy, and whether the capitalist system is compatible with the objective of ecological sustainability. The question for Scott then becomes whether international law can now be released from its entanglement with economic globalisation and become 'the engine of a genuinely sustainable economy?' Here she focuses on the inherent limitations in negotiating multilateral environmental agreements, which accentuate competition between states, rather than leading naturally to cooperation, even when the very future of human civilisation is at stake. Open international negotiations between sovereign states as equals appear as unsuited to achieving action on climate mitigation measures as parliamentary democracies, where craven policies appealing to domestic concerns over modest rises in fuel and other prices linked to carbon emissions rule the day. (7) Scott concludes with a call to arms for international lawyers to engage with climate change, rather than leaving discussion to economists and philosophers. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».