By Fleur Johns
Public international lawyers are forever in catch-up mode, or so it seems. The international legal appetite for ‘raw’ data of global life is seemingly inexhaustible and worry about the discipline lagging behind technology is perennial. There has, accordingly, been considerable energy devoted to ‘cybernating’ international law, in one way or another, or adapting the discipline to new possibilities posed by digital technology.
Much international legal writing concerned with computer and information technology (CIT) and global data flows has been concerned with developing law on these phenomena on the global plane. Scholars and practitioners of international law have, for instance, published important work on privacy and data protection and cyberwarfare.
Just as important, however, but receiving far less attention, are legal and equitable dimensions of the global data economy being envisioned by institutions such as the World Economic Forum. International law is often viewed, in this context, diminutively and technically: as a means of delivering on foregone conclusions and facilitating the realization of pre-agreed goals. Yet, as a recent paper in the London Review of International Law argued, there is much more at stake in the global laws surrounding data-gathering, data-mining and the monetization and use of datasets, than the technical assurance of frictionless interface and the protection of privacy. Whether with regard to global offshoring in the CIT industry, or global practices of data gathering and profit-seeking at the ‘bottom of the pyramid’, new modes of economic inequality are under construction, with law playing a crucial infrastructural role – a role which merits tougher questioning.
Another set of challenges for contemporary international lawyers arises from the turn to ‘big data’ — large-scale data mining and data analytics — for global governance. In the UN Global Pulse initiative, for example, the United Nations is mining digital data sources and using real-time data analytics to evaluate human wellbeing and vulnerability, and directing resources and policymaking attention accordingly. When states that are parties to the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) gather to review the listing of animal and plant species for differing levels of treaty protection, they frequently act (in part) on the basis of species distribution modeling (SDM). This SDM will have been carried out by software implementing one among a number of possible presence/absence algorithms.
It is a routine preoccupation of international lawyers that global norms and public decision-making processes should be apparent to those whom they impact: transparency is today treated as a meta-principle of international legal order. Yet it is still unclear what ‘transparency’ could or should entail when decision-making processes in question are partially automated, use complex and dynamic algorithmic operations, and draw inputs from a range of public and private sources. In relation to SDM for CITES listing purposes, for instance, a recent report in Science suggested that the relevant software’s intricacies are not grasped by many scientist-modelers: there are ‘many in the SDM domain unable to interpret the original algorithms, much less understand how they were implemented in the distributed code’. One wonders what CITES decision-makers to whom SDM modeling outcomes are being delivered are making of this material, if many responsible for these models’ development are unable to interpret them satisfactorily. Another recent paper has drawn attention to the traps that big data analysis can present for policy-makers seeking up-to-the-minute insights on global populations’ health and wellbeing.
Public international lawyers will doubtless continue to pursue broad-ranging regulatory initiatives, regionally and globally, concerning cybercrime and data protection. Beyond these efforts, however, global policy-makers and international lawyers working in a far greater range of fields need to engage critically with the priorities, preferences and relations embedded in, or generated by, the software and hardware of global data gathering and analysis. Associations among co-patterners (or those correlated in some analytical pattern) may prove just as significant as those among co-citizens or fellow right-holders — if not more so — in the global operations of law.
Fleur Johns is a Professor in the Faculty of Law at UNSW Australia, Sydney and a contributor to the London Review of International Law, a new journal, published by Oxford University Press, which publishes highest-quality scholarship on international law from around the world; the first issue featuring Professor Johns’ article ‘The deluge’, discussing the significance of big data for public international law, is free to read online for a limited time.
The London Review of International Law publishes highest-quality scholarship on international law from around the world. Reflecting the pace and reach of developments in the field, the London Review seeks to capture the ways in which received ideas are being challenged and reshaped by new subject-matters, new participants, new conceptual apparatuses and new cross-disciplinary connections.
Oxford University Press is a leading publisher in international law, including the Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, latest titles from thought leaders in the field, and a wide range of law journals and online products. We publish original works across key areas of study, from humanitarian to international economic to environmental law, developing outstanding resources to support students, scholars, and practitioners worldwide. For the latest news, commentary, and insights follow the International Law team on Twitter @OUPIntLaw.
Subscribe to the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only law articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Image: information weapon, keyboard grenade. Photo by -antonio-, iStockphoto.
The post We’re all data now appeared first on OUPblog.
Have a wonderful holiday! I look forward to reading more in the new year!
Kristin,
Those are impressive numbers. Thank you for sharing and I wish that the coming year is just as successful for you and your clients, if not moreso.
Linda
awesome year.
Wow. Is the queries really 30,000 or did you mean 3,000? Thats INCREDIBLE.
Congratulations on a fantastic year! You've obviously been working your tail off, so enjoy your holidays--you've earned them!
Ummm... 22 books sold compared to 30,000 queries read leaves me utterly speechless.
22 books is A LOT, but the agony of 30,000 queries of writers in need of agents, with books completed, with dreams of authordom... WOW!!!
Enjoy your holidays!
As one of the 74 fulls you requested this year, out of 30,000 queries, I suppose I should be honored, even though you ended up passing.
Have a wonderful holiday break, I look forward to your rants in the new year.
I love a good numbers post! Happy New Year!
I'm so pleased that one of those conferences you attended was our one in New Zealand!!! Have a great holiday, Kristin and I'll look foward to reading more Pub Rants in the New Year!!!!
Merry Christmas, Kristin (or whatever you celebrate)! Thank you for sharing so much great and useful information on your blog!
Ian
Merry Christmas! Looking forward to your 08 rants!
Kristin, I hope you won't mind if I post this here.
I dare Barbara Bauer to post her honest statistics for the same categories you listed.
Actually, I also dare Robert Fletcher and Michele Glance Rooney to likewise post their stats for the same categories.
Fun with numbers, based on 30,000 queries and the other stats:
82.2 queries per day
575 queries a week
405 queries per full manuscript request
3,750 queries per new client
Chance of any one query resulting in a new client: .027% *gulp*
53 holiday cards sent per Starbucks eggnog chai consumed last week
Thanks for the blog, Happy Holidays.
Wow Kristen, that is completely incredible. Congratulations on a great year.
And, come to Germany for a conference! I would love to meet you in person.
"Chance of any one query resulting in a new client: .027%"
I think this is the more telling of stats. But then, who knows how many of those are rejected immediately for being the wrong genre, awful format, or simply unreadable? (None of which are illegitimate reasons to reject, but they're not as alarming as rejections for stories that are good but just don't have the magic.)
Happy holidays, Kristin!
Whoa, the difference between queries received and manuscripts requested in mind blowing. Now I understand why the query must stand out above the rest.
On behalf of the writers of one of the 29,992 queries that did not result in representation, let me just say, sincerely, thanks for loving your job and working hard at it, and then taking time on the side to let us in on your thoughts. We'll all get better in this profession because of it.
Have a happy holidays!
Have a great vacation, Kristin.
I think what surprises me most (besides the numbers you posted which are quite brilliant) is your ability to keep your Blog topical and interesting.
It can't be easy trying to come up with new stuff 5 times a week.
Thanks for that.
Brian
alienbogey: where were you when I was taking my statistical analysis class?
Kristen: 30,000 is staggering!
But I'm sure Chutney apreciated the Mommy-and-me cuddle time on the couch.
Best wishes for the holidays, and much thanks for the always insighful posts.
Holy cow! Enjoy the holidays.
And a partridge in a pear tree...
Have a great holiday!
Congratulations and Happy Holidays! :-)
Love the stats! Thanks for sharing from behind-the-scenes!
Incredible stats, Kristen.
Have a terrific holiday and hit the new year running.
Liz Kreger
www.lizkreger.com
i searched your blog for the word percentage - so i guess this question is a new one: what percentage of queries would you say are not worth publishing.
Happy Holidays!
Kristin, Merry Christmas and thanks for a blog that's constantly interesting & informative.
Merry Christmas, and thanks for all the information this year. It has helped immeasurably. :)
Arcaedia posted stats as well, and there was an interesting metric in the comments: of the new authors you signed, how many had been previously published?
Congratulations for all of your great news!
Merry Christmas!
:-)
Have a wonderful holdiay and I'm wihsing you much success in 2008. Thanks for all the rants. :D
Congratulations on a successful year. Hope you have a relaxing and joyous holiday season!
I just want to point out, for those of you who are bemoaning the 22/30,000 mark, that there are plenty of people who were rejected by Kristin who have nonetheless found agents and published their books in this last year. The statistics aren't good, but they're not completely grim, either.
Through the grapevine, I know of at least 4 people who were not only rejected by Kristin during this last year, but who eventually sold their books--in one case at auction, and in another in a preempt.
Kristin isn't the sole gateway to success.
Hoping that I'm in the top 8 for 2008, when I get this silly query to my liking! Kristin Happy Holidays and Happy New Year!!!
Merry Christmas and Happy new Year to you and yours.
Thanks for taking the time and effort to do the blog. The insight helps far more than you'll ever know.
Wow!
I had no idea.
I'm honored to have been one of the 74, even though I didn't end up a client.
Have a wonderful Holiday and we look forward to your return in the New Year.
I've read your blog a few times, always wanting to see the latest updates, but have never commented. This last post made me rejoice for the publishing company's success. 2008 will be a greater year.
Best wishes.
Hope your Christmas was fun.
Have a happy and safe New Year! :-)
Looks like it's been a great year! Merry Christmas!
Astounding! Thank you for a terrific year of blogging. Here's to a happy, healthy '08 for all.
Wordver: gbood which I immediately read as bgood. And why not?
wow! very impressive. Have a great New Years.
Thanks for sharing those stats! As intimidating as it is to read that you read 30,000 query letters, it's at the same inspiring to see that most of the new clients were completely new authors, unpublished...like me! There's hope...I hope! :-)
Wow. 30,000 queries. How do you do that, I'm wondering, and sell, and even BLOG? I can see you work very hard.
The sheer volume of writers out there submitting tells me that much good work must necessarily be rejected and that publication is indeed a long shot.
Thanks for sharing these most interesting statistics.
Mmm!
Busy year! Hope things go better for you! (And you might want to switch to something other than those eggnog chai drinks--unless you want to explain to your doctor how you gained 20 pounds overnight. (grin) )
Happy New Year!