MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS-BASED CLIMATE LITIGATION

2025· article· en· W4408632268 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maryna Medvedieva, Sergіy Bilotsky

Bibliographic record

VenueACTUAL PROBLEMS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental law and policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurisdictionLawPolitical scienceInternational lawLaw and economicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article is dedicated to the phenomenon of international rights-based climate litigation which concerns responsibility of states for the breaches of human rights in cases relating to scientific data on climate change, climate policy, national climate legislation and (or) international climate law. The purpose of the article is to analyze the legal arguments of parties as well as of international human rights courts and quasi-judicial bodies concerning the possibility to apply extraterritorial jurisdiction of states in climate cases. The author considered several cases brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union (People’s Climate case and Biomass case), the European Court of Human Rights (Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz case and Duarte Agostinho case), the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (the Inuit and Athabaskan cases), the United Nations Human Rights Committee (Daniel Billy case) and the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (Sacchi case). The author tried to answer one of the main questions: is it possible to recognize a state’s jurisdiction over persons, with the aim of invoking its responsibility for failure to take mitigation and adaptation measures to combat the effects of climate change, if those persons are neither its nationals nor residents, in other words, are within the territorial jurisdiction of another state? The article refers to the novel concept of ‘effects-based’ / ‘control-over-the-source’ / ‘impacts’ jurisdiction. The author concludes that there are opposite comments on the extraterritorial jurisdiction in rights-based climate litigation: some scholars argue that restrictive approach to extraterritorial jurisdiction possess serious risks for future climate litigation at international courts and human rights bodies; others are of the view that departure from the traditional ‘control over the victim’ concept of extraterritorial jurisdiction may pose dangers to the current international legal order.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.035
Scholarly communication0.0170.015
Open science0.0030.015
Research integrity0.0170.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACTUAL PROBLEMS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONSSame topicEnvironmental law and policyFrench-language works237,207