A New Model of Application of International Law In National Courts: A Transjudicial Vision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the interplay between International Law and domestic law with the view to proposing a model for departing from the traditional pattern of application of international law in domestic courts. The article first discusses the prevailing paradigm of application of international law on the domestic plane. To illustrate and exemplify its disadvantageous results, the article analyses the United States judicial decision in Lisi v Alitalia as a paradigmatic case and I shall contrast it with an analysis in another jurisdiction. Secondly, it analyses existing proposals to depart from the traditional model of application of international law, particularly the transjudicial model and other ideas propounded by feminist, Critical Legal Studies’ advocates and Canadian and United States legal scholars. Finally, it outlines the main features of the proposed model for application of international law in domestic jurisdictions. This model calls for ample non-hegemonic participation of the international community in the adjudication process. It borrows its essence from the vision of collective deliberation advocated by transjudicialism theories and draws on the profound discomfort with the International Court of Justice’s application of the intervention procedures. Additionally, it echoes Chinkin’s call for a rupture with a purely bilateral conception of international dispute resolutions. Succinctly, the proposed model calls for participation of interested and potentially affected international parties in the adjudication process of domestic jurisdictions, with a view to providing decisions with a more legitimate and non-hegemonic nature.
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 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| 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".