Prospects for Judicial Review of Transnational Private Regulation: Singapore and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transnational regulatory power is increasingly exercised by bodies with no formal accountability to states, although such bodies affect the way individuals, organizations, and states themselves conduct their affairs. As a general rule, courts have been reluctant to engage with these transnational private regulators. This article argues that courts in Singapore and Canada are gradually, if haltingly, fashioning public law principles that enable them to judicially review decisions of domestic private regulators. These principles tend to focus not on the formal status of the body exercising power but on the nature of that power, essentially articulating a functional test. The article argues further that, as it has developed in Singapore and Canada, administrative law contains within it legal tools and principles that would enable courts to judicially review the decisions of transnational private regulators and allow them to play an important role in shaping the emerging norms that govern transnational regulation.
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 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".