Loss and damage from climate change: Climate vulnerable groups in Arctic States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the impacts of climate change can negatively affect persons in both developed and developing countries, the notion of climate change loss and damage has typically been associated with the latter. Indeed, the mandate of the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage, the institution tasked with addressing loss and damage in international climate change law, extends to developing countries only. However, the Paris Agreement’s article 8 on loss and damage is not limited to impacts occurring in developing states alone. The indiscriminate nature of article therefore triggers a question as to where loss and damage can be said to take place, with consequences for whose harms can be said to qualify as loss and damage. This paper examines that question, considering the implications that an exclusive focus on developing countries would have for climate vulnerable groups in developed countries, such as Arctic indigenous peoples. The paper highlights that if loss and damage is limited to impacts that take place in developing countries, the climate change harms experienced by Arctic indigenous peoples will be overlooked. At the same time, the paper recognises that the beneficiaries of an international loss and damage remedy may need to be limited, and that drawing lines according to the developing/developed country distinction is one way to achieve this. In light of this need, it is argued that it is necessary to explore the potential of other bodies of law to fill the remedial void left by loss and damage rules, if limited to developing countries only. International and/or regional human rights law is identified as having particular salience here, due to the overlap of the application of human rights law to climate change impacts and international climate change law on loss and damage.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".