Transboundary Pollution, Unilateralism, and the Limits of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: The Second <i>Trail Smelter</i> Dispute
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION On December 11, 2003, the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a unilateral administrative order pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), regarding contamination of the Upper Columbia River in Washington State. What is remarkable about this order is that it is directed against a Canadian company, Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd. (TCML), and concerns historical contamination arising from TCML's smelting and refinery operation located in Trail, British Columbia. The facility in question is, of course, the famed Trail smelter. By seeking to impose liability against a company operating outside of U.S. territory, this order marks an unprecedented extension of the EPA's jurisdiction under CERCLA, prompting a formal diplomatic response from the Canadian government. A second transboundary pollution dispute concerning the Trail smelter presents an intriguing opportunity to consider the continuing relevance of the Trail Smelter arbitration. The intrigue arises not only because of the legally historic significance of the facility itself, but because the approach taken by the EPA in the second dispute appears to be a radical departure from the traditional approach respecting transboundary environmental harm that had its genesis in the original Trail Smelter arbitration. At the heart of the Trail Smelter arbitration and the subsequent development of the harm principle in international environmental law is a recognition that the duty to prevent harm is mediated by an opposing right of a state to exploit its own natural resources in accordance with its own environmental policies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| 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".