Spre un drept mondial al mediului și al climei.Premise, căi și tendințe de dezvoltare.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After a development that lasted over half a century, with a first peak of affirmation three decades ago (Rio, 1992) and after a period of stagnation, the international legal framework of environmental protection seems to be entering an era of relaunch and defining transformations.Imposing the Anthropocene, the affirmation of planetary limits and the accentuation of overlapping and interdependent global ecological crises (climate change, biodiversity erosion, and generalized pollution) generate a paradigm shift and an unprecedented evolution of ecological normativity towards the globalization of stakes and the universalization of responses and implications.From this perspective, first affirmed as a (global) law of the environment and the climate, with the Paris Agreement ( 2015) as its main hinge, the new ecological law takes shape in firm lines by structuring climate law as its driving forces, seconded by biodiversity law, both accompanied by progress in global pollution law.These trends are currently expressed through the concerns of strengthening the climate process (the Glasgow Pact of 2021, the proposal to conceive a treaty on the non-proliferation of fossil energies), the stability of the new biodiversity framework (the Kunming-Montreal Framework and the Agreement on the Conservation of Biodiversity), addressing new forms of pollution (negotiation of a new agreement on fighting plastic pollution).And all this in connection and in mutual potentialization with the momentum of the (international) climate litigation and notification of the new scientific-political concept.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.017 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".