Notice bibliographique
Résumé
1. INTRODUCTION 2. CLIMATE CHANGE GOVERNANCE IN AMERICAN COURTS 2.1 Kivalina, Climate Change and the Common Law of Public Nuisance 2.2 Kivalina v. ExxonMobil, the Death of Environmental Common Law? 2.3 Securing Climate Mitigation Through Judicial Review of Executive Inaction 2.4 Denying Access to Courts for Climate Victims in Need of Adaptation 3. CLIMATE NUISANCE CLAIMS MIGRATING NORTH TO CANADA? 3.1 Climate Change Litigation in a Legislative Vacuum 3.2 Kivalina v. Exxonmobil-like Hypothetical Lawsuit: Tux v. Oil Sands 3.3 Crown Tort Liability for Failure to Govern a Public Nuisance 3.4 Additional Constitutional Grounds for Action Against the Federal Crown 3.5 Availability of both Compensatory and Injunctive Remedies 3.6 Obstacles to Access to Justice in Multijurisdictional Litigation 3.7 The Birth of Federal Common Law of Interprovincial Pollution in Canada 3.8 Environmental Common Law Stands Unimpeded by Legislation 4. WHERE TO FROM HERE? CLIMATE CHANGE AND COMMON LAW JUDGES 4.1 Comparative Federal Common Law of Transboundary Nuisance 4.2 Obstacles Ahead in Climate Change Litigation 4.3 Justiciability: the Thin Line Between Law and Politics 4.4 Attributing Loss in a World of Victims and Perpetrators 5. CONCLUSION Our conclusion obviously does not aid Kivalina, which itself is being displaced by the rising sea. But the solution to Kivalina's dire circumstance must rest in the hands of the legislative and executive branches of our government, not the federal common law. (1) Hence concluded the judgment that nailed the coffin shut of one of the most important and interesting legal cases in recent history. It had the trappings of a David and Goliath battle, pitting a small Inuk village threatened by the rising seas of the rapidly warming Arctic against some of the largest multinational corporations. (2) Due to its fact situation and legal argumentation, Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp. (3) was heralded as the ultimate refinement of climate change litigation strategy, the ultimate test case for climate justice relief. (4) So far, it has suffered three consecutive defeats on jurisdictional grounds. Climate change may well be the most pressing global problem of our time. (5) Since the major impacts are only perceived to be far in the future, the governments arguably most responsible for climate change can refuse to enact comprehensive laws that would effectively govern the issue without incurring popular disapproval. When governments fail to act, the injurious status quo persists, and victims have no choice but to seek remedial action through the courts. (6) How may North American judges, faced with an executive and legislative failure to govern the most complex and important problem mankind has ever faced, evaluate the claims of climate change victims? (7) This comment undertakes a comparative analysis of the recent appellate decision in the American case Kivalina v. Exxonmobiland a hypothetical Canadian case, based on the Supreme Court jurisprudence of both countries. This comment focuses on the ability of climate change litigants to use the common law to access the courts, and on the evolution of jurisprudential trends enabling climate change governance in the face of political inaction. This comment suggests: (1) that Kivalina's recent defeat could herald the end of environmental common law in the United States, and (2) that Canada may offer a more welcoming legal climate for similar claims. Importantly, this comment does not speculate on the likelihood of success of climate litigants in either country. 2. CLIMATE CHANGE GOVERNANCE IN AMERICAN COURTS 2.1 KIVALINA, CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE COMMON LAW OF PUBLIC NUISANCE While the world is experiencing increases in temperature due to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the Arctic is warming at approximately twice the global rate. …
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 | 0,001 | 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 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
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 ».