HUMAN RIGHTS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW? THE FORGOTTEN ORIGINS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN LATIN AMERICA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patrick Macklem’s book is a welcome intervention in current discussions about the contextual and structural dimensions that account for human rights abuses. Macklem’s book contributes to this discussion, introducing the international legal order as a relevant dimension to be considered. Macklem does so by arguing that international law in part structures our globalized world and that human rights as international legal entitlements also play a role in this process. Human rights, Macklem argues, monitor the international legal order’s structuring of our world, they mitigate the adverse consequences of this structuring, and, when monitoring and mitigating, they also render the international legal order legitimate. What Macklem proposes is a conceptual link between human rights and the international legal order, in which legitimacy of the latter depends on meeting the structural demands of justice required by the former. This conceptual link, however, requires actual articulation. I will explore an example of this articulation in Latin America. When human rights appeared in the region, they did so under a conception that linked them to the international legal structure. Latin American states participated in the codification of human rights not only to limit the scope of diplomatic protection but also to give social policies like land redistribution international legitimacy. While the conceptual link identified by Macklem is crucial, the Latin American example suggests that it was an underlying political ideology about regional solidarity – the project of ‘American International Law’ – which allowed human rights to embody structural transformation. With that ideological project gone, it remains to been seen if human rights, at least in Latin America, may again convey yearnings for international justice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".