MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2187987639 · doi:10.82308/39750

The international legal personality of the multinational enterprise and the governance gap problem

2009· article· en· W2187987639 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Robin F. Hansen

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsMultinational corporationPersonalityCorporate governanceBusinessPolitical scienceLawPsychologySocial psychologyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis examines the concept of legal personality in public international law, noting in particular its definition, importance in legal theory and emergence within the legal system. Examining the rights of investors in current international investment law, as well as the duties of private persons which stem from customary international law, the thesis argues that multinational enterprises (MNEs) meet the definition of legal persons under public international law since they are entities granted direct international law rights and duties within this legal system. The thesis concludes with a brief profile of the governance gap in MNE legal accountability under domestic and international legal systems, a gap which results from the incongruity between the international scope of MNE operations and the largely national scope of regulatory apparatuses. The thesis presents several ways in which the legal personality of MNEs under public international law may contribute to the amelioration of the governance gap.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.017
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicCorporate Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207