INTRODUCING PATRICK MACKLEM, <i>THE SOVEREIGNTY OF HUMAN RIGHTS</i>: FOUR CONTEXTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In offering an account of international human rights internal to public international law, Patrick Macklem’s The Sovereignty of Human Rights explicitly takes back international human rights from both moral and political theory. A number of the contributions to this UTLJ symposium on Macklem’s book speak to this context by questioning his positivist definition of law. To grasp the originality and ingenuity of Macklem’s account more fully, however, several contexts unstated in the book are essential. The second context identified and contested in the symposium is the contrast with current trends in legal thought that either meld international human rights with their domestic counterparts or dissolve them into transnational law. Other contributions add a third, rights-sceptical context, understanding Macklem’s account of international human rights as also addressed to critiques that human rights leave underlying structural injustices in place. The book’s revolutionary central claim is that the purpose of international human rights law is to mitigate the adverse effects of the distribution of power by public international law in the form of sovereignty. After distilling these three contexts from the articles in the symposium, this introduction argues that a genealogical reading of The Sovereignty of Human Rights points to temporality and transition as an important supplementary context. In effect, the book’s focus is on redistributions of sovereignty rather than on its distribution at large. The introduction concludes by asking, in this fourth context, what Macklem’s ‘theoretical architecture’ of international human rights might mean for new human rights.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".