Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper pushes back at the conjuncture of Utopia and human rights. A focus on Utopia risks obscuring complexities in the process of realizing rights in time through institutions of governance. The first part recounts judicial rituals by which judges delay the coming into effect of their conclusion that a law violates human rights. Reference to Utopia exposes tension in the rights enterprise insofar as the more ‘radical’ approach involves not imagining rights for the future, but insisting on their enforcement now. The second part addresses a controversy around the moment when a right, on its best understanding, began to produce legal effects binding on governments. This issue raises questions about how evolving understandings of rights fit into theories of the Constitution and of judicial power – and about responsibility for the blind spots of the past. The third part analyzes these examples’ effect of displacing human rights from past and present to future. If such a displacement appears natural to philosophers who view human rights as intrinsically Utopian and future-oriented, it is disruptive for jurists’ theory of a supreme Constitution and its effect on laws that infringe rights. Where a Utopian focus on rights may imply a static condition, this paper’s cases underscore the processes of governance and of working out an inter-institutional division of labour. They invite attention not only to ends, but also to means.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".