Promise and perils: the making of global money laundering, terrorist finance norms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to offer a preliminary comparison of the formation of money laundering and terrorist finance norms through international conventions and through Security Council resolutions. Design/methodology/approach The formation of a global approach to criminal finance through the negotiation of international conventions is compared to the creation of a standardized approach through intervention by the United Nations Security Council. Findings While the formation of norms through the Security Council is efficient, it risks jeopardizing the legitimacy of the institution. Formation through conventions, with the assistance of soft‐actors, however at times glacial, is preferred. Practical implications The paper implies that the Security Council should seriously restrict any involvement in creating global norms attentive to terrorist funding. Originality/value The paper critiques global money laundering, and terrorist finance laws through the unique prism of norm formation. It demonstrates that the imperfect process of norm development through international conventions offers more promise than Security Council lead development.
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 | 0.027 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".