The Liberal Limits of Environmental Law: A Green Legal Critique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of environmental law embodies a deep contradiction—it is a product of the state, yet the state is the primary agent of development. This contradiction infuses state-supported resource regimes (energy, forestry, agriculture, water use) that have long been agents of environmental erosion while they have remained resistant to progressive reform. It also underpins the theoretical framework for proposed reforms today, ecological modernization. The result is that environmental law extends, rather than resolves, society’s underlying environmental “problematic.” This can now be seen in institutional responses to climate change and the “green economy.” To address this situation, the authors apply a critical new approach—green legal theory (GLT)—to analyze these historical resource regimes and today’s emerging issues. GLT does so by expanding the conception of law to address the “constitutive” or “regulatory” effects of those “system dynamics” that set the larger economic, political, and cultural conditions for social/environmental relations. In this task, GLT aims to help move “legal” analysis into the pursuit of the systemic re-formations that exist beyond the liberal limits of environmental law.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".