Children and Climate Justice: A New Perspective on the Role of Children as Leaders in a Worldwide Debate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Access justice is a fundamental right recognised in international law. Children, generally without legal capacity, do not have the ability to act directly. Nevertheless, international human rights protection mechanisms offer a new opportunity to act upon violations of their rights and the creation of a specific complaint mechanism for children before the CRC Committee represents one of the most important developments, as it was created especially for children. The recent decision before the CRC Committee on climate change which was brought by a group of 15 children is a landmark case in this field. For the first time, a group of children submitted an international complaint showing that they are real agents of change, and not passive victims. Their message is powerful, in line with their actions and growing movement. Since 2018, they organised several climate strikes all around the world and the one of 2019 was considered as one of the largest demonstrations in history. Children and young people have also filed several petitions at the national level. They are acting as leaders, raising their voices to secure respect for the rights of children and protect the environment. The adoption of the CRC 25 years ago encouraged the development of a new conception of childhood: children are not only seen as vulnerable objects in need of protection, but as rights holders and agents in their own lives. The new complaint mechanism before the CRC Committee, in particular, gives children a real opportunity to take action for themselves and for others, highlighting their growing role in the field of environmental justice, and more generally, peaceful activism and advocacy.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".