Is Legal Empowerment Good for the Poor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This panel was convened at 2:15 p.m., Thursday, March 26, by its moderator, Anne Trebilcock formerly of the International Labor Organization, who introduced the panelists: Naresh Singh of the Canadian International Development Agency, Commission on the Legal Empowerment of the Poor; Kerry Rittich of the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto; Steve Golub of Boalt Hall Law School, University of California-Berkeley; and Caroline Sage of the World Bank Legal Department. * INTRODUCTORY REMARKS It was my pleasure to introduce the distinguished panel (1) and moderate the debate. The panel's title was deliberately provocative: the specific goals of law reform efforts, and how they are carried out, may yield better or worse outcomes for men and women living in poverty. The launch of the report of the Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor in mid-2008 marked an important event in the policy debate over the relationship between law, development, and human rights. (2) Before retiring as Legal Advisor of the International Labor Organization, I was privileged to participate in a Commission working group on implementation strategies and tools. Given the diversity of views on the Commission, arriving at consensus recommendations was quite a feat. The discussion of legal empowerment could not be more topical. The four pillars identified by the Commission--access to justice and the rule of law, property fights, business rights, and labor rights--are cast in starker relief by the current economic crisis. This sudden plunging of millions of people deeper, or back, into poverty is pushing us to rethink regulation, rights, and strategies. The just launched Hague Journal on the Rule of Law has devoted an entire section to critiquing various elements of the Commission's report) Several new books have called for fresh approaches to both the rule of law (4) and human rights. (5) In addition, the contributions of the working groups that underpinned the Commission's main report suggested topics for further empirical and theoretical research to shed light on what would in fact empower poor women, men, children, and their communities. Moreover, how does legal empowerment compare to others such as the human capabilities approach of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum? (6) What are the implications, especially for human rights law, of the Commission selecting these particular four pillars and how they interplay? Finally, as Nehal Bhuta of the University of Toronto has suggested, examining this report may lead to reflection on the role of high-level Commissions in producing knowledge and influencing policy, since they necessarily imply a large degree of generality in order to permit consensus. The Brundtland report used the term sustainable development almost twenty years before it gained purchase. (7) Currently, G8 and G20 leaders are picking up some of the ideas put forth by the World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization in 20048 on trade, finance, foreign direct investment, and social issues. Its recommendation to make decent work a global goal has been embraced in the UN system, (9) in the 2008 ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization, (10) and in many regional institutions. What, then, will be the legacy of the Commission on the Legal Empowerment of the Poor? Some of its recommendations, such as access to justice and legal identity, will be easily embraced by all. Others, particularly regarding property rights, remain more controversial. (11) We can fairly ask whether legal empowerment is more about power than about law. In order to succeed, any law reform effort will need political savvy, creativity, and cultural and gender sensitivity alongside sound legal and economic analysis. Following reforms, will the poor be able to see and use law as a tool of their empowerment rather than of their oppression? And, more importantly, how? …
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 | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 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".