Les théories tiers-mondistes du droit international (twail) : Un renouvellement ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’analyse tiers-mondiste du droit international semble connaître un « second souffle » dans la littérature anglophone depuis le milieu des années 90, comme en témoignent les réunions académiques des Third World Approaches to International Law ( twail ). Si leurs auteurs s’inscrivent dans la continuité des premières analyses tiers-mondistes, on peut repérer des déplacements dans l’analyse. Les twail se démarquent des théories tiers-mondistes de la première génération sur aux moins deux points : la conceptualisation de la souveraineté des États et celle du principe d’universalité, pierres angulaires du droit international. C’est cette tension entre les liens de continuité et de discontinuité qui unissent les twail aux premières théories tiers-mondistes que cet article se propose d’examiner.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".