Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hannah Arendt, famously, was no believer in human rights. Human rights, she thought, are unsatisfactory because they are territorially unlimited but ineffective. Her own alternative – the right to have rights, through membership in a political community – is not satisfactory either: such rights are effective but territorially limited and subject to the state’s discretion. Drawing on Karen Knop’s ‘private citizenship,’ this article suggests that a private international perspective may provide answers to these shortcomings. First, we should view private rights and private international law as the private side of human rights. Second, in times of great stress for a state, private international law can sometimes protect rights more subtly, more precisely, than human rights. And, third, the central role of private law in the protection of human rights provides a new lens on human rights more generally. By giving rights granted by states transboundary effectivity, private international law enables a third way beyond human rights that are ineffective and national rights that are territorially confined. It is by no means a panacea. But an analysis of human rights law, or of Arendt’s right to have rights, is incomplete unless it includes the right to have private rights as established by private international law.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".