International Environmental Law, Environmental Justice, and the Global South
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On October 28, 2016, the Journal of Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems (“TLCP”) hosted a symposium to honor the late Professor Burns Weston, to celebrate the publication of International Environmental Law and the Global South (Cambridge University Press, 2015), and to use the book as the foundation for further scholarly inquiry. The symposium featured an inspiring and enlightening series of panels and keynote addresses on a variety of topics including environmental justice and indigenous peoples, energy poverty and its disparate impact on women, violence against women in resource extractive industries, and North-South fisheries disputes. The thesis of International Environmental Law and the Global South is that an ecologically sustainable planet is impossible in a world plagued with significant and growing inequalities. If international environmental law is to succeed, it must overcome the North-South divide by developing policies and frameworks that address the concerns and priorities of the peoples and states of the Global South (including the “South in the North” -- environmental justice communities in the United States, Canada, and other affluent countries). This introduction provides a synopsis of the frameworks and case studies used by the symposium contributors to analyze the North-South divide in international environmental law, including environmental justice, human rights, feminist legal theory, Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL), and decolonization. The symposium articles highlight the intersections of gender, poverty, rurality, indigeneity, and race, and explore how structural inequalities interact, overlap, and produce differentiated experiences of advantage and disadvantage.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 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".