LE VERTIGE ET LA SOFT LAW : RÉACTIONS DOCTRINALES EN DROIT INTERNATIONAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plusieurs juristes, tant au plan national qu’international, s’interrogent devant l’intensification contemporaine de l’utilisation de formes souples de régulation sociale, regroupées communément sous le qualificatif de soft law . Dans le cadre de la gouvernance mondiale, ce phénomène n’a-t-il pas pour conséquence de rendre indiscernable le droit de la morale, de la politique ou encore de l’économique ? La soft law ne constitue-t-elle pas, dans bien des cas, une stratégie d’évitement du droit déployée par différents acteurs internationaux ? À terme, n’est-elle pas susceptible de dissoudre les obligations juridiques contraignantes ? L’exemple de la Déclaration relative aux principes et droits fondamentaux au travail adoptée en 1998 par l’Organisation internationale du Travail nous permettra de mieux comprendre les fondements du malaise doctrinal perceptible en droit international public depuis la parution de l’article de Prosper Weil sur la normativité relative dans les années quatre-vingt.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".