The Legal Standing of the Natural Person in International Trade and Investment Law: How to Empower the North American Citizen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The end of the Cold War and the latest wave of globalisation (perhaps already post-globalisation), has hurled the legal profession into an incessantly, rapidly, and inevitably discordant transforming new environment. A striking corollary of this wave of change is that domestic lawyers can no longer rely on their local legal expertise. They are increasingly being challenged with problems requiring knowledge in the conflict of law and the much broader field of international law. Yet, international law is grounded in a different “philosophy”, particular to the international community it serves, and acquires authority and legitimacy from special sources within that community. These law making sources consist, in a descending order of authority, of custom, treaties, judicial decisions, juristic writings, and decisions of international institutions and output of international conferences. And just as it would be impossible to discuss in a short paper the law making role of “legal institutions” in domestic law, is impossible here to do justice to the complex subject of “sources of international law”. Suffice it to say, that the sources fulfill a “constitutional” role by determining the legal relations among the actors who are ruled by the sources. This paper will address a specific constitutional area in international law - the issue of subject of international law, which very simplistically, can be paralleled with citizenship in domestic law. It is a burning issue in international law because the status of “subject”, which informs of the legal rights and obligations of the actors operating in the international community, has been changing dramatically. In particular, this paper will focus on the current “puzzle” arising from developments pertaining to the status in international law of the individual and certain groups of individuals and underscore the relevance of the notion of equality. The purpose of the paper is to alert the lawyer to the “pigeon-holing” options available by identifying the main relevant legal questions.
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 | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".