Recognition and Responsibility: A Legislative Role for Transnational Corporations in Public International Law? - Thoughts from the Perspective of Human Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transnational Corporations (TNCs) provide goods, services, jobs and tax income for states and are an essential factor of the globalized economy.At the same time are many TNCs so powerful that it has become impossible for some nation states to regulate them adequately.In particular, in cases of human rights violations, TNCs can be underregulated perpetrators.For a long time, there have been efforts to ensure that TNCs can be held accountable even if their economic power exceeds the political and regulatory powers of nation-states.So far, international law has had limited success in this regard.Public International Law might be more effective in reaching TNCs if TNCs would have a more open role (as opposed to lobbying states) in creating new rules of international law.It is suggested in this article that TNCs can have a role in the legislative process.The shortcomings of the current legal system will be shown as well.In addition, the text will provide considerations based on human rights and international constitutional law as to why this should not yet happen at this time.
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 | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| 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".