The Responsibility of States for Environmental Harm in a Multinational Context - Problems and Trends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper begins with a discussion of parallels between problems of environmental liability law at the national and international levels. At both levels, rules built upon the concerns and priorities of another era had to be applied to the complex environmental problems of our times. Both systems have proven to be inadequate in addressing modern environmental concerns but have also evolved to better meet the challenge. The second part of the paper will highlight the shortcomings of the international system and of the law of state responsibility. They are rooted in the system's focus on the interests of sovereign states and include the vagueness of the relevant rules, the disagreement as to the standard of liability (fault or strict liability), the perception of many polluting activities as "lawful," the system's reactive character, the system's failure to effectively deal with ecological costs rather than injury to state interests. In its third part, the paper will survey developments and trends that may provide solutions to the aforementioned problems. Possible solutions include the emergence of rules that protect the common interests of the international community rather than the sovereign interests of states, the development of special liability regimes for more narrowly defined environmental concerns (generally: ultrahazardous activities), efforts of the International Law Commission to develop a risk liability regime, the proliferation of regimes designed to prevent or manage environmental problems.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".