Notice bibliographique
Résumé
I. Introduction II. Intervention in Domestic Affairs III. Recognition IV. Diplomacy V. Relational Contract Theory VI. International Law and Mass Atrocities VII. Conclusion I. Introduction The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is the term proposed by a Commission convened by Canada in 2001 to counter humanitarian crises the world over. (1) The R2P was referred to in the United Nation's 2005 World Summit Outcome, (2) Security Council resolutions, (3) and General Assembly (GA) resolutions. (4) In the event of a nation-state's unwillingness or failure to prevent genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, or ethnic cleansing within its own borders, the international community is given the responsibility by the R2P to warn the 138. Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the UN in establishing an early warning capability. 139. The international community, through the UN, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their populations from genocide, war-crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law. We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to helping States build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to assisting those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out. State and, if deemed necessary, militarily intervene. (5) The R2P is not, however, ratified by an international treaty, and whether it has become a customary rule of international law or a general principle of law remains open to debate. The R2P is an equalizer that helps opposition groups in sovereign countries. It is the new instrument that allows opposition groups to challenge sovereign states. The R2P bolsters this challenge by inviting scrutiny of the dealings of states with opposition groups within their boundaries. This scrutiny not only brings knowledge to opponents within the country, but also garners worldwide focus and censure of governments. It reinforces third-party judgments of competition and conflict inside state borders. Thus, within the framework of the R2P, states are now being held to a higher standard. That is, the R2P generates an underdog advantage of sorts by focusing a spotlight on those (over-) powerful governments that persecute, or intend to persecute, opposition groups. (6) The R2P is a doctrine that challenges the long-established understanding that human rights are ultimately a profoundly national question, rather than an international matter. Underdogs can be defined as individuals or groups that are a disadvantaged and lacking in power. (7) However, those that appear as underdogs have, in fact, greater resources at their disposal than would initially seem the case. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».