ASSUMING REGULATORY AUTHORITY FOR TRANSNATIONAL TORTS: AN INTERSTATE AFFAIR? A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE CANADIAN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW TORT RULES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Tolofson v. Jensen, the Supreme Court of Canada determined that in most cases the law of the place where the tort occurred has exclusive authority to regulate all legal aspects related to it. In developing this choice of law rule, the Supreme Court relied on an analogy between Private International Law and Public International law. This allows Private International Law to claim a structural, neutral function in the distribution of legislative authority in the international realm and to ignore both private law and public law considerations. To best reveal the way in which the Supreme Court injected these limitations into Private International Law by reference to Public International Law, I show the striking similarity between the Supreme Court’s reasoning and several Private International Law writings at the end of the 19th century in Continental Europe. 
 In the context of the extraterritorial tortious activity of multinational corporations, these limitations make Private International Law oblivious to arguments of Corporate Social Responsibility scholars showing that a multinational corporation may legitimately be regulated by the state of its headquarters, even for extraterritorial conduct. Overall, I argue that an overemphasis on legislative authority as a symbol of state sovereignty transforms Private International Law matters generally, and transnational torts in particular, in inter-state affairs, removed from the interests and pleas of the individuals and communities affected by them.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".