International environmental law and environmentally harmful space activities: learning from the past for a more sustainable future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present and analyse part of the relevant legal instruments currently available for regulating environmentally harmful space activities. Design/methodology/approach This paper opted for a functional research method combined with a comparative methodology. To make the argument, this paper relies on the contextual analysis of primary and secondary sources of law, instrument of soft law and the relevant background material (e.g. journal articles, textbooks, law reform and policy papers). Findings The central section will focus on the principles of international environmental law to outline their utility in the contemporary context. Finally, the conclusive part will point out the several ways in which the use of analogies can shape the outer space regime, especially concerning how those principles that are developed to safeguard the Earth, can also be extended for the protection of the space ecosystem. Originality/value Environmental hazards are rapidly increasing and the current international law and policy on planetary protection are inadequate to meet the challenges of the near future. There is no possibility of an environment-friendly and sustainable future if not strictly connecting it with a comprehensive and transparent acknowledgement of the human mistakes made on Earth. There are valuable lessons to be learned from our past, and it is under this perspective that the trend of polluting the outer space can be reverted. This paper fulfils an identified need to study the correlation between principles of international environmental law, space law and the current situation in the outer space.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".