Litigating the Impacts of Climate Change: The Challenge of Legal Polycentricity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article uses Lon Fuller’s theory of polycentric cases to highlight the major challenges of litigating the consequences of climate change and the problems this poses for judges. It argues that a typical climate change case is a polycentric case par excellence and uses for illustration case studies where policy makers are sued before domestic courts to compel improved or more ambitious reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The cases that are applied for comparative analysis include the Friends of the Earth Case in Canada, the Urgenda Case in Holland, the Leghari Case in Pakistan, and the Greenpeace Petition in the Philippines. It concludes that with its implications for regulatory policy, meta-territoriality and range of persons/institutions that may be impacted by one adjudication, climate litigation usually poses the same kinds of legal questions regardless of the legal context.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it