Rethinking relational architecture: Interpersonal justice beyond private law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article takes as its starting point a particular idea about the nature of private law: that it is specially concerned with relational or interpersonal justice. The relational conception is meant to be juxtaposed against non-relational conceptions typically grouped under the heading of ‘instrumentalism’: the idea that law is a means to an end. But a question mark hovers over domains beyond the private. Are these non-relational or relational and anti-instrumentalist in different ways? To answer this question, this article articulates a more capacious framework of interpersonal justice that captures the continuities and discontinuities between private law and non-private fields. I rework the architectonic of relationality, untangling foundational concepts such as the notions of parties and identities; the process of reasoning to different structures of interpersonal obligations; and the multifaceted idea of instrumentalism. Working through moral philosophy, jurisprudence, criminal law, and constitutional and administrative law, I follow the golden thread of interpersonal justice that is woven through the conceptual architecture of all these fields and suggest further consolidations, extensions, and implications that are yet to be fully grasped.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".