Conceptual Challenges to the Recognition and Enforcement of the Right to Clean, Safe and Healthy Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The right to clean or healthy environment, or what may be called environmental right, is one of the most controversial emerging rights since the agitation for the recognition of the link between human rights and the environment started gaining momentum at international law forums. This is happening partly because, at the global level, no treaty attempts to delimit the scope of this right explicitly; an endeavour which would have served as a form of guide to national jurisdictions. Given that the UN General Assembly recently officially resolved that a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a universal human right, and considering the implication this may have on national jurisdictions, it has become more imperative to redefine this right for the ease of enforcement. This paper seeks to examine the conceptual and the theoretical conundrum as well as the criticisms of the right to clean, safe and healthy environment that have largely played a prominent role against the enforcement of the rights in general. The paper also examines constitutional challenges associated with the recognition of the rights in Nigeria and the judicial effort in the case of Gbemre v SPDC in attempting to expound the constitutional right to life to include the right to the environment. The paper finds that the right to the environment has been described and qualified diversely from one jurisdiction to another rendering the same susceptible to the challenges of interpretation. The paper, however, suggests that given the importance of the right, same should be interpreted, no matter how it is qualified, to mean a right to an environment fit for human living, the courts being sufficiently able to draw the line between what environment is fit and what is not for human habitation.
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 | 0.047 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.143 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.033 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.034 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".