International judicial practice on the environment : questions of legitimacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: international courts and the environment: the quest for legitimacy Christina Voigt Part I. Procedural Legitimacy of Judicial Environmental Practice: Access to Justice: 1. The environment before the European Court of Justice Ludwig Kramer 2. The EU Aarhus Regulation and EU administrative acts based on the Aarhus regulation - the withdrawal of the CJEU from the Aarhus Convention Katja Rath 3. Access to justice before EU courts in environmental cases against the backdrop of the Aarhus Convention: balancing between pathological stubbornness and cognitive dissonance? Hendrik Schoukens Part II. Legitimacy and Scientific Certainty - Environmental Adjudication, Use of Experts and the Limits of Science: 4. Scientific uncertainties: a nightmare for environmental adjudicators Tracey Kanhanga 5. Ignorance, uncertainty and biodiversity: decision making by the court of justice of the European Union Volker Mauerhofer Part III. Judges as Law-Makers: Legitimate Development of Environmental Law: 6. Sustainable development before international courts and tribunals: duty to cooperate and states' good faith Kazuki Hagiwara 7. New legal avenues to support a transboundary harm claim on the basis of climate change Kurt Winter 8. The Court of Justice of the European Union and the high level of environmental protection - transforming a policy objective into a concept amenable to judicial review Delphine Misonne Part IV. Legitimacy of Outcomes: Performance, Effects (and Side-effects): 9. When environmental protection and human rights collide: four heuristics of conflict resolution Marie-Catherine Petersmann 10. Silent implications of US-Tuna II: greening market behaviour through the WTO Cristiane Derani and Arthur Rodrigues Dalmarco 11. Adjudication of environmental impact assessment claims before international courts and tribunals Andrew B. Loewenstein 12. Litigation as a climate regulatory tool Jacqueline Peel and Hari Osofsky Part V. The Legitimacy of Non-Compliance Procedures: 13. Administrative procedures and rule of law values in the Montreal compliance system Anna Huggins 14. Legitimacy questions of non-compliance procedures: examples from the Kyoto and Montreal Protocol Zerin Savasan Part VI. The Limits of Environmental Justice through Courts: Balancing Legitimacy with the Need for Creativity: 15. Environmental Ombudsman: its role in the system of accountability mechanisms for administrative environmental decision making Mahito Shindo 16. The role of NGOs in monitoring compliance under the World Heritage Convention: options for an improved tripartite regime Evan Hamman 17. Beyond litigation: the need for creativity in working to realize environmental rights Lisa Chamberlain.
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 | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".