Sustainability Through the Lens of Principles of International Environmental Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This proposal will attempt to further develop the “requirement” of sustainability[1], as this concept plays a key role in the development of environmental law. Particularly, we focus on the temporal aspect of sustainability. There are different definitions of sustainable development but they all are undermined: the long time. For instance, on the one hand, the International Institute for sustainable development insists on that must “redesigning institutions to ensure current and future potential to meet the needs and aspirations of communities”[2]. On the other hand, the Brundtland Report states: “Sustainable development is a development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”[3]. It’s why the question that gives a direction for presentation is: How is international and environmental law can take into account terms issues? To try to answer this question, we will focus on the international and environmental jurisprudence. This framework is the place where conflicting issues enhanced conflicting approaches. Judges must settle those conflicting temporalities. There are at least two difficulties: first, litigants claims evokes different time scales. Environmental conservation implies a long time approach where economical approach supposes a shorter scale of time. Time is plural and it varies according to social activity concerned. The legal activity is no exception. Secondly, judges must take in account the time of law. Studying jurisprudence in international and environmental jurisprudence is a field to highlight how judges settle conflicts of temporalities. [1] For the “requirement”, see Morgan Sweeney, L’égalité en droit social au prisme de la diversité et du dialogue des juges, Thèse de doctorat, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense, 2010, en cours de publication. [2] International Institute for Sustainable development, Impoverishment and Sustainable Development (Winnipeg : IISD, 1996). [3] World Commission on Environment and Development, Our common Future (Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1987).
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".