Who Speaks for the State?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Who speaks for the state is a critical question in international relations. Statements by government representatives have normative force—capable of binding the state in numerous ways, from norm formation to staking out a litigation position. Governments choose their representatives carefully, and typically vet positions and even statements in advance. Indeed, the stability of international relations hinges on the assumption that state representatives act with governmental authority. The stakes of disputes over who speaks for the state are thus high. Several such contestations have emerged in recent years, in a variety of international fora. At the United Nations General Assembly, the Credentials Committee has repeatedly deferred determining regarding who represents Afghanistan and Myanmar, but it has left in place representatives previously accredited so they continue to vote and represent the countries in question. In the wake of these deferrals, other UN bodies—including even the International Court of Justice (ICJ)—have taken decisions at variance with the Assembly’s attitude, leading to inconsistent approaches within the UN system. Such questions have also arisen in investment arbitration, as in recent suits against Venezuela where multiple counsel teams have contested the authority to represent the respondent government (on behalf of the rival governments of Maduro and Guaidó). This contribution explores the panel’s discussion of these cases and others, teasing out the norms, institutions, and politics of deciding contests over representation. Specifically, it covers who speaks for the state in law- and policymaking (Part I), the UN General Assembly (Part II), the ICJ (Part III), and international arbitration (Part IV). Section V briefly concludes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.011 |
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".