MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902075306 · doi:10.24926/265535.4180

Regime Congruence: Rethinking the Scope of State Responsibility for Transboundary Environmental Harm

2019· article· en· W2902075306 on OpenAlexaff
Maria L. Banda

Bibliographic record

VenueMinnesota law review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental law and policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsState responsibilityPolitical scienceHarmJurisdictionHuman rightsEnvironmental lawLaw and economicsInternational lawSovereigntyJurisprudenceNexus (standard)LawSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The advent of the Anthropocene has extended the reach of environmental harm: from offshore drilling to geoengineering and climate change, activities in one State can increasingly injure people far beyond its borders. States have longstanding rights under customary and international environmental law (IEL) to protect their citizens from such harms. In practice, however, States rarely take action against their sovereign peers, seemingly leaving individual victims without a remedy. This need not be the end of the story. As this Article shows, environmental norms interact with and can find expression through other legal regimes. Focusing on the Inter-American human rights system, of which the United States is a member, this Article asks whether, and to what extent, the obligations that IEL imposes on States vis-a-vis each other should shape the content of duties that States owe under human rights treaties to individual rights-holders beyond their jurisdiction. This issue remains under-analyzed in the literature and under-developed in the jurisprudence. This Article seeks to fill those gaps. It represents the first attempt of its kind to develop a theory of regime congruence and apply it to transboundary environmental harm. Its contributions are threefold. First, it develops an analytical framework to examine the scope of State obligations arising at the “nexus” of two mutually-supportive legal regimes — what I call “regime congruence.” In so doing, it points the way toward a more unified conception of State responsibility and contributes to the literature on the fragmentation of international law. Second, it furthers our understanding of the scope of extraterritorial obligations in international law through exhaustive doctrinal analysis and extends the doctrine to the area of transboundary environmental harm, which is in urgent need of clarification. Finally, it re-conceptualizes the notions of enforcement in IEL by showing that a congruent regime can actually provide more effective remedies to individual victims than IEL itself. The argument developed in this Article has significant implications for access to justice and accountability in the Western Hemisphere. It suggests not only that the United States could incur international responsibility for domestic acts or omissions that cause transboundary harm, but also that individual U.S. residents would be entitled to direct recourse against neighboring States in the Inter-American system whose failure to control domestic pollution violates their rights.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMinnesota law reviewSame topicEnvironmental law and policyFrench-language works237,207