Rehoming diplomacy: Privilege and possibility in the international law of diplomatic relations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inspired by Karen Knop’s distinctive approach to international legal scholarship, and by her writings on gender and diplomacy, this article explores the centrality of households and household hierarchies in the international law of diplomacy as well as their significance for understanding hierarchy and privilege in international law more broadly. This argument is developed by attention, especially, to the negotiation history and text of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR). Diplomatic premises have been organized around hierarchy in ways that are apparent in the text and travaux préparatoires of the VCDR, the article shows, and the diplomatic premises so configured do work in international legal discourse beyond being expressly defined and protected by international law. Those premises afford a model of how statehood should be performed and how states should relate to one another, helping to normalize hierarchy within and between states, and to entrench gendered hierarchies (in combination with class and racial hierarchies) in diplomatic work. The article demonstrates how attention to the role of hierarchy ‘at home’ in diplomatic work, in the hybrid, public-private space of the diplomatic household, can elucidate international law’s deep investment in maintaining privilege. This it illustrates by examining a recent dispute between Equatorial Guinea and France before the International Court of Justice over the status of the Paris residence of one of Equatorial Guinea’s senior diplomatic representatives, viewed against the backdrop of France’s ongoing resistance to reparations claims against the French state for its practices of colonial pillage and enslavement. Yet its defence of privilege notwithstanding, diplomacy’s typical residential, state capital-based model is undergoing change and has in fact long been a focus of strategic re-articulation through protest. The article concludes by querying whether diplomatic households could be regarded, counter-intuitively, as legal spaces of possibility for the recomposition of relations on the international legal plane.
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.086 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| 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".