Identity, Effectiveness and Newness in Transjudicialism’s Coming of Age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Article attempts to expose and problematize the ideological connections and normative commitments between these theoretical explanations of effectiveness and the pragmatic process-oriented proposals made in the 1990s when the United Nations was searching for ways to renew the discipline of international human rights law while avoiding the dual risks of politicization and Third World normative fragmentation. The liberal theory of effective supranational adjudication was the culmination of decade-long efforts by American liberal internationalists to provide a theoretical basis for and programmatic proposals towards achieving a more "effective" international human rights regime. Their theory aims at structuring the interface between the universal and regional human rights systems through a reconfigured account of "transjudicialism." It can be taken to exemplify a particular liberal legal sensibility shared with post-war mainstream human rights lawyers the author calls "transnationalism-legal-process-antiformalism" (TLPAF). TLPAF regards transnational governance through disaggregated processes of cooperation and dialogue in information exchange as instrumental to the development and effectiveness of supranational institutions. Formalist legal structures are, accordingly, rebuffed and displaced by the specification and enforcement of substantive human rights norms through informal, teleological procedural mechanisms.
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 | 0.054 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.110 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.036 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".