Climate Change Before International Courts and Tribunals: Reflections on the Role of Public Interest in Advisory Proceedings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the advisory proceedings in relation to climate change before the International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights through the lens of the broader phenomenon of public interest litigation. It focuses on certain substantive, institutional, and procedural dimensions of the advisory proceedings, construed as a form of public interest litigation. First, it argues that international courts and tribunals should innovate by allowing broader participation while considering the constraints of their statutes and rules of procedure. Second, this article examines how prior advisory opinions, even though non-binding, may shape the subsequent practice of States, and considers the impact that the advisory opinions on climate change may have. Ultimately, this article questions whether these advisory opinions may have a catalytic effect on ensuring the protection of other global commons in the future.
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 | 0.062 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.044 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.042 | 0.035 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".