Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyzes the relationships between law, power, and contestation in the global political economy. Drawing upon critical theories of political economy, the analysis advances a radical critique of dominant understandings of the distinction between international and transnational law. It argues that transnational law operates dialectically as the “common sense” of contemporary global capitalism to subordinate national politico-legal orders and societies to the discipline of hard, enforceable corporate trade and investor rights, whilst limiting corporate social responsibilities to soft, voluntary and unenforceable standards. However, the study also suggests that these dialectical tensions are not hegemonic in nature or operation, but in fact give rise to openings for contestation and re-imagining capitalist legality as “good sense” through a praxis conception of transnational law. En este articulo se analiza la relacion entre el derecho, el poder y la impugnacion de la economia politica global. Basandose en las teorias criticas de la economia politica, el analisis avanza una critica radical de la comprension dominante de la distincion entre el derecho internacional y transnacional. En este trabajo se sostiene que el derecho transnacional opera dialecticamente como el sentido comun del capitalismo global contemporaneo para subordinar las ordenes y sociedades politico-juridicos nacionales a la disciplina de los derechos del duro, exigible comercio libre y corporativo y a los derechos de los inversores, a la vez que limita la responsabilidad social corporativa a suaves, voluntarias e inaplicables normas. Sin embargo, el estudio tambien sugiere que estas tensiones dialecticas no son hegemonicas en la naturaleza o el funcionamiento, sino que de hecho dan lugar a impugnar y re-imaginar la legalidad capitalista como sentido comun a traves de una concepcion de la praxis del derecho transnacional. DOWNLOAD THIS PAPER FROM SSRN : http://ssrn.com/abstract=2327501
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".