Non-compliance Mechanisms: Interaction between the Kyoto Protocol System and the European Union
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The universality of climate change challenges and interdependence in the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions called for a collective response in a multilateral framework. However, because of discrepancies on the appropriate design for an international regime the European Community (EC) took the lead on the international stage in the negotiation and the application of the Kyoto Protocol. Thus, an international regime – a mixed agreement to which both the EC and its Member States are parties – and a regional regime in the framework of the European Union coexist. In both regimes, one of the core challenges remains to ensure the effective application of the law, which requires the setting up of compliance control mechanisms. At the international level, an innovative non-compliance procedure organizes a continuous monitoring which combines traditional techniques with more intrusive procedures. The system is also remarkable as regards the legal qualification of and reaction to non-compliance situations. For its part, the EC created a specific non-contentious mechanism and can make use of a reinforced jurisdictional armory and a reinforced sanctioning power. The EC's control mechanism should be able to take over from the Kyoto Protocol non-compliance mechanism in order to reinforce the effectiveness of adopted rules. Through the study of these mechanisms’ interactions, this article aims to assess the capacity of the control system as a whole to ensure the very credibility of the Protocol and the reliability of the international and European economic tools to reduce GHG emissions at least cost. Finally, it allows the envisaging of the possible evolutions of the legal regime of the fight against climate change.
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 | 0.023 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| 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".