The Legality of the EU's Stand‐Alone Approach to the Climate Impact of Aviation: The Express Role Given to the ICAO by the Kyoto Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aviation sector is not yet covered by the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). Taking into account the fact that aviation increasingly contributes to climate change, the European Commission adopted a proposal for legislation to include aviation in the EU ETS. The proposal foresees the inclusion of internal EU flights as well as external flights to and from the Union within the EU ETS. On 20 December 2007, EU Environment Ministers reached political agreement in the Environment Council on the basis of a new compromise text tabled by the Presidency. However, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), as well as various stakeholders, does not consider that the EU has the competence to include aviation within the EU ETS. A crucial point concerning the legality of including aviation in the EU ETS is the fact that Article 2(2) of the Kyoto Protocol states that the parties ‘shall pursue limitation or reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol from aviation . . . working through the International Civil Aviation Organization . . .’. This article reviews the legality of the EU's stand‐alone approach, focusing on the European and international legal framework and taking into account the express role given to the ICAO by the Kyoto Protocol.
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 | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".