La qualification juridique des swaps comme site d'une lutte globale pour le droit (The Legal Characterization of Swaps as a Site of Global Struggle for Law)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: A partir d’une recherche d’archives dans la litterature produite par les praticiens du droit au sujet des swaps depuis les annees 1980, l’article decrit la controverse au sujet de la nature des swaps et met en evidence le travail juridique qui a ete deploye en soutien a l’innovation financiere. La facon dont les swaps devaient etre conceptualises en droit etait en effet une question ouverte, a laquelle de nombreux juristes ont tente des reponses en puisant dans divers repertoires de l’argumentation juridique. Une telle controverse laisse voir une co-production du droit, ou le savoir des juristes de l’industrie financiere est porteur d’un pouvoir d’inflechir la portee des normes existantes, un pouvoir d’autant plus significatif qu’il se deploie dans un milieu globalise ou l’autorite de l’Etat se fait plus fragmentee. L’article decrit comment les avocats de la finance ont globalement resiste au droit, en produisant systematiquement des arguments a propos de ce que les swaps n’etaient pas (ni valeurs mobilieres, ni assurances, ni paris, etc.) et en les qualifiant plutot d’instruments financiers sui generis. Ainsi detaches des principales categories juridiques en vigueur, les swaps furent capables de croitre relativement a l’abri des regimes destines a encadrer la finance depuis les annees 1930. English Abstract: Based on archival research in literature by and for legal practitioners on swaps since the 1980s, this article presents the early controversy about the nature of swaps and elucidates the legal work deployed in support of financial innovation. How swaps would fit into the available legal categories of diverse jurisdictions was an open question to which many practitioners crafted tentative answers based on various repertoires of legal argumentation. This controversy reveals a co-production of law, where legal knowledge carries a power to inflect the scope of existing legal categories, a power all the more significant in the global environment that is finance where State authority is more fragmented. This article shows how financial lawyers globally resisted law by arguing consistently about what swaps were not (neither securities, nor insurance, nor gambling, etc.) and by characterizing them as sui generis financial instruments. As such, swaps were able to grow relatively immune from most legal regimes that were in place to regulate finance since the 1930s.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".