MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1599459083

Foreword: Global Governance as Administration - National and Transnational Approaches to Global Administrative Law

2005· article· en· W1599459083 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Benedict Kingsbury, Nico Krisch, Richard B. Stewart, Jonathan B. Wiener

Bibliographic record

VenueLaw and Contemporary Problems · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdministrative lawCorporate governanceFraming (construction)Political sciencePublic administrationGlobal governancePrivate lawPublic lawAgency (philosophy)Law and economicsLawSociologyEconomicsManagementEngineeringPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION This symposium addresses an emerging but little-studied field of legal theory and practice: Global Administrative Law. It is the first in a series of journal symposia produced by the ongoing Global Administrative Law Research Project, based at NYU Law School. (1) By way of overview, we set out in this Foreword some core elements of the concept of Global Administrative Law that animates this symposium; these ideas are developed in greater detail in the framing paper by Kingsbury, Krisch and Stewart. (2) We then note briefly some of the many elements that are developed in the other nine papers in the symposium. II CORE CONCEPTS The concept of Global Administrative Law begins from the twin ideas that much governance can be understood as administration, and that such administration is often organized and shaped by principles of an administrative law character. The contemporary starting point is thus the rapidly changing pattern of transnational regulation and its administration, a pattern that now ranges from regulation-by-non-regulation (laissez faire), through formal self-regulation (such as by some industry associations), hybrid private-private regulation (for example, business-NGO partnerships in the Fair Labor Association), hybrid public-private regulation (for instance, in mutual recognition arrangements where a private agency in one country tests products to certify compliance with governmental standards of another country), network governance by state officials (as in the work of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on environmental policies to be followed by national export credit agencies), inter-governmental organizations with significant but indirect regulatory powers (for example, regulation of ozone depleting substances under the Montreal Protocol), and inter-governmental organizations with direct governance powers (as with determinations by the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees of individuals' refugee status, or the WTO dispute resolution system for trade conflicts). Bodies that were not originally envisaged as regulators have increasingly become so. The U.N. Security Council now regulates movements of arms, food and money in areas subject to sanctions, and lists specific individuals whose assets are to be frozen by states under anti-terrorism rules. The World Bank supervises developing countries in their adoption and implementation of very detailed externally-devised standards for matters ranging from the structure of insurance markets to the conduct of environmental assessments. The Forest Stewardship Council, a private entity, has developed detailed sets of criteria for sustainable forest use, and for certification of products from such forests. These evolving regulatory structures are each confronted with demands for transparency, consultation, participation, reasoned decisions, and review mechanisms to promote accountability. These demands, and responses to them, are increasingly framed in terms that have an administrative law character. The growing commonality of these administrative law-type principles and practices is building a unity between otherwise disparate areas of governance. The sense that there is some unity of proper principles and practices across these issue areas is of growing importance to the strengthening, or eroding, of legitimacy and effectiveness in these different governance regimes. Instead of neatly separated levels of regulation, a congeries of different actors and different layers together form a variegated global administrative space that includes international institutions and transnational networks involving both governmental and non-governmental actors, as well as domestic administrative bodies that operate within international regimes or cause transboundary regulatory effects. And, while norms of a regulatory character have been adopted by international treaties or intergovernmental agencies with great frequency since at least the nineteenth century, international administrative roles and capacities until recently evolved slowly (some important early cases excepted). …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.137
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.184 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaw and Contemporary ProblemsSame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207