Resolving Conflicts between Multilateral Environmental Agreements: The Case of the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer are multilateral environmental agreements that regulate the use of chemicals that contribute to climate change and ozone depletion. The Montreal Protocol, however, encourages the replacement of ozone depleting substances with chemicals that contribute to climate change. Likewise, the Kyoto Protocol encourages the production of an ozone depleting substance by allowing companies to profit by destroying the byproduct of its manufacture. This comment attempts to resolve these conflicts through conventional and customary international law. It concludes that the treaty regimes can apply favorability, effectiveness, and cooperation principles to resolve the conflicts, and recommends changes to the Montreal Protocol regime to implement these principles.
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 | 0.042 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".