Mapping the Territory: Contextual Jurisprudence, Legal Pluralism and WTO Law and Development, A Response to William Twining's Internal Critique Thesis from the Point of Transnational Jurisprudence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, I respond to Twining's lecture, ‘Globalisation and Legal Scholarship’. Through an overview of the effect these changes had on the WTO I will describe how a lawyer or scholar of an ‘established transnational field’ experienced the phenomenon of globalisation. In the WTO, the question of meaningful integration of developing countries has been central to negotiations in the last two decades. After engaging in a mapping exercise with respect to development in WTO law, I will propose a method for Twining's ‘systematic rethinkings’ and ‘review of the Western Canon’: scholars and lawyers need to map their fields and the relevant debates in other disciplines. They should proceed to engage with the alternative rationalities of politics, history and economics that are relevant to their work. Engaging with cross-disciplinary debates has the potential to refine our legal arguments, expose hidden assumptions, reveal blind spots in legal theory and provide innovative solutions to legal problems.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.090 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".