Newness, Imperialism, and International Legal Reform in Our Time: A Twail Perspective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter offers my reflections, grounded in part on the relevant empirical evidence, on how my 2004 journal article that goes by the same title has influenced the field of international law, and especially the development of ‘Critical Third World Approaches to International Law’ (TWAIL). The article at issue is concerned with how claims regarding the supposedly radical or highly significant ‘newness’ of certain crises are deployed to legitimise international legal reform projects that have had, or are likely to have, a tendency to facilitate or justify longstanding imperial ambitions. The article argues that: (a) the deeply political practice of asserting the kinds of newness claims discussed above allows its proponents to better justify the implementation of longstanding, but previously far less tenable, international law reform projects; (b) it is only through the displacement of third-world suffering from internationalist consciousness that the construction of this ‘post-9/11’ world as a significantly new world order has been made possible; and (c) TWAIL analysis is extremely useful international law optic/methodology with which to better understand and deal with the processes through which these newness claims are deployed to render significantly more tenable the international law-reform projects that are thus undergirded.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it