Addressing Fragmentation and Inconsistency in International Environmental Law Analysis of the Role of Specialised or Treaty Judicial Bodies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyses the contribution of treaty or specialised judicial bodies to striking problems such as fragmentation and inconsistency within International Environmental Law (IEL) as they fill the gaps in IEL, taking advantage of the absence of an overarching International Environmental Court (IEC) and the indolence of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). It argues that by helping improve the ICJ, they will help resolve IEL's jurisprudential inconsistency and fragmentation. The paper therefore first explains the sense in which jurisprudential fragmentation and inconsistency underline IEL's compliance mechanisms, and shows the limits of the state-centripetal approach of the ICJ as a solution to such a problem. Finally, it proposes a state-centrifugal paradigm that stresses how international specialised judicial bodies may help strengthen the ICJ's fragmentation and inconsistency management functions. To propose this novel approach, this paper employs legal critical methods to expose current gaps in the state-centripetal approach.
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 | 0.014 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".