International procedures for environmental protection initiated by individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The text analyzes international compliance procedures related to the 1993 North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, the 1998 Convention on the Access to Information, Public Participation to Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters and the 1999 Protocol on Water and Health to the 1992 Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes. The common feature of these procedures is that they can be initiated by individuals and non-governmental organizations. This novelty of international compliance procedures in environmental matters made them comparable with international procedures established by universal human rights treaties. All of them can be initiates by communications of individuals. The three mentioned procedures were established due to different reasons. By the pressure of environmental non-governmental organizations and to satisfy some economic concerns, the North American Free Trade Treaty was supplemented by the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation that was aimed at improvement of the application of national environmental law. Unequal levels of the application of national environmental laws in Canada, Mexico and the USA might have negative consequences to trade between them and to environmental protection in them. To prevent such development the Agreement was concluded and individuals and NGO-s are allowed to trigger international fact-finding procedure. The subject-matter and purposes of the Aarhus Convention - democratization of environmental governance - implies that the public should have the right to initiate international conciliatory procedures. In spite of the fact that subject-matter and purposes of the London protocol are different, corresponding conciliatory procedure was inspired by the Aarhus procedure. All three procedures are intended, at last resort, to improve protection of the environment. The protection of an individual interest is not the first aim. Due to that, legal standing and rule on local remedies are not defined in the same way as in human rights proceedings. Value of these proceedings is not manifested just in an achievement of the higher effectiveness of environmental law, but also in democratization of an important field of international cooperation.
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 | 0.025 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.033 |
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".