Is Development a Lost Paradise? Trade, Environment, and Development: A Triadic Dream of International Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After providing a brief background on international law, the history of the right to development is discussed. International law, as it exists today, has been abused by developed nations in their position of power over underdeveloped nations. The right to development, first formalized by the United Nations in 1986 with the Declaration on the Right to Development, was meant to give people of the developing world a right to development. However, the right to development has been supplanted by the concept of sustainable development, as orchestrated by the developed nations. It was hopeful that organizations like the World Trade Organization would implement the right to development through trade; however, these organizations have become merely a tool for the developed nations and associated corporations to continue their dominance over developing nations. Environmental concerns in recent times have shifted the international focus from the right to development to sustainable development, and the right to development has been overlooked. A legal right to development must be recognized before sustainable development can be applied as a tool to benefit underdeveloped nations through environmental and trade-related policy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".