Factors determining the viability of rights claims in climate change litigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the ground-breaking Inuit petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights challenging the United States national climate policy in 2005, to the historic high-profile court wins in rights-based climate change cases against the governments of the Netherlands and Pakistan in 2015, and to the spread of such cases across dozens of jurisdictions by the 2020s, rights claims in climate change litigation have become a truly global phenomenon. However, although climate change litigation has attracted considerable attention in legal scholarship, there is a very limited understanding of what makes rights claims in climate change cases successful or unsuccessful. It is precisely this gap in the literature that this thesis aims to fill. \nBy conducting a systematic and in-depth analysis of relevant cases litigated in more than a dozen jurisdictions, this thesis identifies three common factors that determine the viability of rights claims in climate change cases: the types of claims, the invoked rights, and the litigation forum. The analysis reveals three general scenarios for the viability of rights claims in climate change cases: a) litigation in Europe, dominated by challenges to unambitious greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets that allegedly violate the rights to life and to respect for private and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights, with courts using different approaches to such claims; b) litigation in North America, dominated by sweeping challenges to inadequate climate policy that allegedly violates the constitutional right to life, and where courts are extremely cautious towards such claims; and c) cases in the Global South, with no single dominating type of claims, yet all brought under the right to a healthy environment, and where courts have been generous in terms of their interpretation of this right. \nThe thesis concludes that the above-mentioned rights can be successfully invoked in various types of claims, even though not all litigation forums are equally favourable to such claims.
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 | 0.277 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| 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".