"Other Worlds are Actual": Tully on the Imperial Roles of Modern Constitutional Democracy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The globalization of modern legal and economic practices has not ushered in a state of perpetual peace as Kantians have famously predicted. Rather, it has reinforced the perpetual crises and violence that is today's realm of the political. This article examines James Tully's claim that the formalization of diverse legal traditions into the modular confines of modern constitutions, as nation-states and international taw, is a project of today's imperial hegemony. The global imperialism of modern constitutionalism is one that suppresses the vast multiplicity of existing legal pluralities and, consequently, fuels war and aggression, not perpetual peace. Tully's important analysis of the imperial roles of modern law is understood in the broader contexts of his work on constitutionalism and contemporary debates in the disciplines of legal and political theory. The author provides support for Tully's optimism that law and politics can potentially be decolonized by opening up to the worlds and legal pluralities that are constantly being re-created in the everyday practices, interactions, and relationships of people situated in their own unique localities worldwide. Numerous examples of where these "other worlds" can be seen are offered.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".