The Inter-American Court’s Environment and Human Rights Advisory Opinion: Implications for International Climate Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Advisory Opinion of the Inter-American ( IA ) Court of Human Rights on Environment and Human Rights , released in February 2018, has the potential to usher in a new era for the relationship between climate law and international human rights law. This article begins with the Inuit Petition submitted to the IA Commission on Human Rights in 2005 to identify three legal challenges which it brought to light on the application of the international human rights framework to climate change: enforceability, causality, and extraterritoriality. By relying on examples from the Human Rights Council and the Paris Agreement negotiations, we show that these three issues continue to have an impact on the relationship between climate law and human rights. We then draw attention to the groundbreaking character of the IA Court’s Advisory Opinion, and in particular to the finding that the American Convention on Human Rights gives rise to an autonomous right to a healthy environment and to state duties that are both preventive and extraterritorial in nature. We suggest that the IA Court’s revisiting of the three legal hurdles provides an opportunity to close the gap between the disciplines of international human rights and climate law.
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 | 0.043 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.053 | 0.044 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".