Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patrick Macklem’s The Sovereignty of Human Rights is underpinned by a commitment to explaining the role of human rights law from the ‘inside’ of international law, distinguishing this strictly legal realm from global politics. We explore questions surrounding the ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ of international law by juxtaposing Macklem’s positivist, validity-focused, account and our own ‘interactional’ approach, which embraces the embeddedness of law in social norms and social practices while emphasizing distinctive traits of legality and legal interaction. We argue that a validity-based conception of legality results in a necessarily thin account of the ‘justice’ that human rights can do. Next, we consider Macklem’s focus on collective rights as being central to the role that he argues human rights play in mitigating the distribution and exercise of sovereign power and in legitimating international law’s normative architecture. We assess whether or not international human rights law really plays the legitimating role for international law that Macklem claims it does, given that these rights are subject to a range of limitations built into positive law, such as reservations to treaties, derogation provisions, or substantive limits. Finally, we ask whether human rights serve the distinctive normative function within international law that Macklem accords to them, concluding that several branches and processes of international law shape and restrict sovereignty alongside human rights law.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".