International Legal Protection of the Atmosphere and Ozone Layer: the Continuation of the History
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article examines the evolution of international legal regulation of atmospheric air from transboundary pollution over long distances both in connection with the formation of international judicial practice and a series of protocols that developed the 1979 Convention, specifying its content. On the one hand, we are talking about the search for criteria for fulfilling obligations through the concept of “critical load”. On the other hand, it is about clarifying substances and processes for which special regulation is introduced to increase the likelihood of preventing pollution.The protection of the atmosphere is also relevant to the protection of the ozone layer, provided not only through the fulfillment of obligations under the 1985 Convention, but mainly through the Montreal Protocol of 1987, which is achieved not only by more specific obligations, but also by a compliance procedure. If initially, within the framework of the international legal protection of atmospheric air and the protection of the ozone layer, the principles of international environmental law were only declared, then with the adoption of the protocols they received confirmation of their implementation. Strengthening such important principles such as no harm outside national jurisdiction, precaution, common but differentiated responsibility
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".