Globalizing Decency: Responsible Engagement in an Era of Economic Integration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevailing view in the foreign policies of many Western countries\nholds that "constructive" economic engagement with repressive regimes\nwill induce human rights sensitive development. A very vigorous\ndissenting position, held by many opponents of "globalization," is that\neconomic engagement and liberalization fuel many of the very human\nrights abuses they are supposed to cure. The empirical evidence tends to\nsupport a nuanced approach to constructive engagement, one that might\nbe termed "responsible engagement." Under a responsible engagement\nmodel, there remains an important role for economic sanctions, both as a\nmeans of affecting the behavior of nation-states and to stave off the\npossibility that citizens of one country are contributing to the persistence\nof the targeted repressive regime. Responsible engagement obliges\nrecourse to "smart sanctions." Yet, the legal apparatus governing\neconomic integration is, on the whole, built without an eye to a "smart\nsanctions" responsible engagement policy. This Article explores these\nassertions and concludes that a full-fledged strategy of responsible\nengagement obliges reconsideration and clarification of several facets of\nthe World Trade Organization
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".