The 2024 ITLOS COSIS Advisory Opinion: Delivering Climate Justice for Small Island States
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract for Scopus Indexing: In May 2024, the International Tribunal on the Law of the Seas ( ITLOS ) issued a historic advisory opinion on the obligations of States regarding climate change under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas. This advisory opinion was issued in response to a request submitted by the Commission on Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law. Significantly, the Tribunal stated that: a) States must interpret their obligations under the Convention in light of the best available science; b) greenhouse gas ( GHG ) emissions constitute pollution of the marine environment; and c) they must take all necessary measures to reduce, prevent and control GHG emissions. ITLOS also noted that developed States have an obligation under the Convention to assist developing States in mitigating the effects of climate change. This advisory opinion marks an important first step in the fight for climate justice for small island States. Forthcoming are advisory opinions concerning climate change from the International Court of Justice ( ICJ ) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ( IACHR ). In this article, we explore the jurisdictional arguments some participants raised, the significance of the Tribunal’s opinion, and we contextualize the opinion in light of broader efforts towards climate justice.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it