The Centre–Periphery Antagonism in Adjudication: A Case Study on the Spatial Dimension of the Political
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the key elements of the critical theory of adjudication is the identification of an objective antagonism that is at stake behind a given court case. The identification of the antagonism allows to develop an axis, along which interpretive possibilities can be spread and arranged from those most favourable to social group A (e.g. workers) to that most favourable to social group B (e.g. businesses). The paper discusses the famous Laval–Viking case-law which was concerned with the fundamental rights of workers (right to strike and undertake collective action) and their relation to the economic freedoms of businesses, seeking to escape the high standards of worker protection in their own country either by changing the flag of a ship to a flag of convenience (Viking) or by importing cheap labour force from abroad, without guaranteeing the workers equal rights (Laval). Whereas the vast majority of scholars have interpreted the Viking–Laval jurisprudence as relating to the fundamental socio-economic antagonism opposing workers and businesses, the Slovenian scholar Damjan Kukovec has proposed an alternative reading. According to him, the real antagonism is ultimately between workers from the periphery (Central Europe, in casu Baltic countries) and workers from the centre (Western Europe, in casu Scandinavian countries). By introducing the spatial dimension to the political, Kukovec entirely changes the formulation of the underlying antagonism. The paper engages critically with Kukovec’s analysis and argues that the objective interest of Central European workers lies not in selling their labour at dumping prices, but gaining the same guarantees of social protection as existing in the West.
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 | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| 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".