Of Paradoxes, Precedents, and Progeny: The <i>Trail Smelter</i> Arbitration 65 Years Later
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PARADOXES A fountainhead of transboundary pollution becomes the fountainhead of law prohibiting transboundary pollution. An industrial activity that is synonymous with environmental threats becomes synonymous with environmental protection. A small town in Canada becomes known throughout the world for an international arbitration that bears its name. For the fact that there was an international arbitration at all we owe thanks to an antique English rule of civil procedure. And, The country that “won” the arbitration has more recently been equivocal as to the legal status of the fundamental principle on which the award was based. On March 11, 1941, just over 65 years ago, the Trail Smelter Tribunal, composed of jurists from Canada, the United States and Belgium, delivered an award that ushered in a new era in a field that has become known as international environmental law. The Tribunal held, in essence, that Canada was required to see to it that the smelter at Trail, British Columbia, would “refrain from causing any damage through fumes [to agricultural interests] in the State of Washington;…” I first began studying the Trail Smelter arbitration in the early 1970s, which is roughly equidistant in time from both the Tribunal's final award and the publication of this volume. I wondered why this controversy, essentially between a private smelter on one side of the U.S.-Canadian border and private landowners on the other, could not simply have been resolved through national courts.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".