Montreal Protocol: an international law achievement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current state of the environment is a major concern for most of the countries. However, despite all the efforts made in the multilateral arena, it seems that the practical results are minimal. Within this context, the Montreal Protocol remains as an international instrument that has been implemented successfully worldwide. This article explores the legal characteristics that made the Montreal Protocol such a remarkable legal agreement, proposing that it involves a series of well-designed binding commitments, a precautionary approach, makes differentiation for developing countries, is a flexible agreement, does not include soft law, and reflects a sense of compromise among the international community, all of which has led it to its unquestionable success. For those purposes, the articles use an international law perspective mainly from the Critical Legal Studies approach and from Law and Economics.
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 | 0.018 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.011 |
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".