Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book assesses whether—and how—emissions trading schemes are subject to international economic law. Through an analysis of trade and investment treaties and related jurisprudence, it argues that the objects of trade in these schemes, namely carbon units (also known as emissions permits or carbon credits), are capable of being legally characterized as ‘goods’, ‘services’, ‘financial services’, and ‘investments’ under international economic law. The sui generis properties of carbon units—such as their intangibility, their degree of permanence, their relationship to an economic activity performed, and their use as a regulatory instrument—make this a particularly complex question. Having ascertained whether and how carbon units are regulated in this regard, this book undertakes a comparative analysis of numerous emissions trading schemes and uncovers a raft of design elements affecting trade and investment in carbon units that could be impugned under international economic law. In particular, it demonstrates how all of the major schemes—from the nascent schemes in China, South Korea, and Ontario to the more established schemes in the European Union, Switzerland, New Zealand, Norway, California, and Quebec—engage in violations of international economic law that are, in many cases, unlikely to be justified under environmental or other exceptions or exemptions. Not only do these conclusions have implications for the relationship between the international economic and international climate regimes but, more broadly, these conclusions interrogate the efficacy of international economic law for covering market-based mechanisms designed to manage environmental problems. They also provide guidance to policy-makers seeking to inoculate their emissions trading schemes from legal challenges under international trade and investment treaties.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".