Pushing the Boundaries: Rethinking International Law in Light of Cosmopolitan Obligations to Developing Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This article argues for a change in the normative assumptions of international law so as to attenuate the historical marginalization of developing countries. It describes a form of collective responsibility called “cooperative cosmopolitanism” that requires individuals and states to take responsibility for harms to those beyond their borders. Cooperative cosmopolitanism entails obligations shared by all that are realized collectively and cooperatively. Taking a phenomenological approach and relying on examples of areas of international law (especially international investment law) that have a disproportionately negative impact on developing countries, the article suggests five ways in which international law should evolve in order to take better account of our cosmopolitan obligations: (1) widening the ambit of international law beyond state-based issues; (2) de-emphasizing state practice andopinio jurisas criteria for creating international law; (3) recognizing an increased role for equity in international law; (4) broadening state responsibility to include harms caused by their nationals abroad; and (5) articulating a cosmopolitan understanding of the responsibility to protect foreign nationals.
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 | 0.026 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".