Bibliographic record
Abstract
States’ ability to impose liability for extraterritorial torts is often structured to avoid an illegitimate assertion of authority by one state over another. However, the resulting liability regimes are inconsistent and difficult to justify. In this article, I argue that limitations of liability in this context have been based on misconceptions about abuse of power. I employ instrumental and rights-based approaches to states’ authority to demarcate a coherent framework for states’ liability for extraterritorial torts. I show that courts can impose liability on their own state and officials for extraterritorial torts as authority is not exerted over a foreign state. Liability can also be imposed on foreign states for their extraterritorial torts through consent, a sufficient jurisdictional connection to the tort, or the establishment of universal jurisdiction by a breach of jus cogens norms. Lastly, I assert that punitive damages are generally an illegitimate form of exerting authority.
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 | 0.051 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.143 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".