Unitas multiplex - les unités du droit international et la politique de la fragmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Law and a fortiori lawyers despise emptiness and multiplicity, as evidenced by the present-day debate on the so-called « fragmentation » of international law. Surrounded by uncertainty, paradox and contradiction, international law scholars show a somewhat artificial and quasi-compulsive attachment to the unity of their law. Although it seems to be accepted all round as evident, however, the idea of unity calls for a critical examination and a theoretical elaboration. What does it mean for international law to be « One » ? Is there only one way to conceive of international law's unity ? Is unity only about norms, or does it also involve juridical forms and values ? Is unity monocausational or does it rest on a complex nexus of different dynamics – whether deontic, hermeneutic, ethical or cultural ? While fragmentation is becoming something of a canonical question in the international law discipline, the present study is an invitation to suspend the mainstream discourse on fragmentation and to put the postulate of unity on hold. To put unity on hold does not mean to rebut or refute it indefinitely. Rather, it means questioning the way in which it is accepted as an undisputed assumption, disquieting the usage of this taken-for-granted concept, showing that it is not self-explanatory and that unity might not necessarily be what we thought in the first place. The argument revolves around one central claim about the unity of international law : behind a seemingly simple and elementary concept lies a complex and multidimensional problematic. The modern « technicians of unity » cut unity down to the binary laws of conflicts of norms and jurisprudence. Against this, the
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.003 |
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".