The Search for Legitimacy in International Law: The Case of the Investment Regime
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The legitimacy-talk is of course far from exclusive to the investment regime.Legitimacy has become central to international law.12 Since the end of the Cold War, there has been a skyrocketing interest in the concept.13 There is no field in which legitimacy does not appear: international conflict and security law, international criminal law, international economic law, international environmental law, and so forth.Although various explanations can be given about this extraordinary interest in legitimacy, 14 it is no coincidence that the spike in attention to the question of legitimacy falls into a time of important institutional and normative transformations taking place within the international legal order and beyond.15 From a consensual normative order centered on interstate relations, international law has evolved into a complex and dense normative framework encompassing subject areas 12. See, inter alia,
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".