PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT – INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW PERSPECTIVES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review essay outlines, examines and compares two approaches to the environment – the international human rights law approach and the international humanitarian law approach. International community is in the middle of a climate emergency, facing societal collapse and the possible extinction of our species in the future. Hence, we might or we should use any legal weapon we can – including international human rights law and international humanitarian law – to confer as much protection on the environment as we can. The main research questions are: Which of these approaches better protects the environment? Which is closer to the idea that the environment should not only be protected but should have its rights? Where the environment is protected for its value for humans and where for its inherent value? The research methods used in the paper are content analysis of the relevant literature and legal analysis of human rights law and international humanitarian law treaties. The authors conclude that human rights law approach is more progressive and would offer better protection to the environment, even though it is still anthropocentric. Consequently, a human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment has to be anthropocentric. As to international humanitarian law, international policy has a long way to go before the welfare of the whole ecosystem is adequately recognised and protected in armed conflicts. While international humanitarian law is also anthropocentric and generally neglects to safeguard nature, some principles can be inferred to offer nominal protection in times of conflict at all levels: custom, general principles and treaties.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".