The Legitimacy of Private Transnational Governance: Experts and the Transnational Market for Force
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the roles that experts, specialized systems of knowledge and law play in the legitimization of private transnational governance. Governance of the global political economy and society is increasingly being shaped by private actors, institutions and processes that operate transnationally, linking local and global orders through complex laws and regulatory arrangements. These private governance arrangements are legitimized through their claims to possess expert knowledge and authority. However, adopting the lenses of critical theory, this paper seeks to problematize the tendency to defer unquestioningly to expert opinion. It argues that uncritical deference to experts is symptomatic of deeper conditions that are linked to the dominant form that law takes under contemporary capitalism. This paper examines the nexus between knowledge and power and the specific place that experts have in the legitimization of private modes of governance under contemporary conditions of post-modern legality and late capitalism. It advances critical theory as an approach to understanding the significance of technological rationality and expert systems of knowledge in the reproduction of transnational capitalism and in the creation of space for greater reflexivity in governance and the enhancement of individual autonomy.
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 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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".