Application of the Principle of Proportionality in Regulating Environmental Conflicts: An Experience of Ukraine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article has a theoretical and research character, and its main aim is to determine the legal nature of the principle of proportionality as an institutional mechanism for the coordination of interests in environmental conflicts from the standpoint of national Ukrainian legislation and law enforcement practice. The issue is analyzed by conducting a theoretical legal analysis of the principle of proportionality as a general legal principle. As the basis of environmental law, proportionality contributes to the implementation of the principle of sustainable development, as it determines the mechanism for the coordination and balancing of diverse interests. The study of international and Ukrainian legislation, which defines the normative grounds for the application of the principle of proportionality in legal relations, demonstrates that in national environmental legislation, in the regulation of environmental relations, the principle of proportionality is used to establish limitations on rights in order to protect the public environmental interest or to determine the proportionality of the right to an environment safe for life and health with other rights. The article analyzes the judicial practice of the European Court of Human Rights in environmental cases and the relevance of its application by the judicial institutions of Ukraine. This made it possible to verify the effectiveness of the proportionality criteria in the settlement of environmental conflicts.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".