Germany's Politics and Bureaucracy for Preventing Atrocities
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
has accepted the unique responsibility arising from its history.The avoidance of war and violence in international relations, the prevention of genocide and severe violations of human rights, and the defence of endangered minorities and the victims of oppression and persecution are integral to Germany's reason of state. 1 As of June 2017, this is official German government policy, adopted by the federal cabinet as the highest executive organ in its "Guidelines on Preventing Crises, Resolving Conflicts, Building Peace."Compared to earlier policy documents, the ambition is expressed more strongly than ever: raison d'état, or reason of state, is vernacular usually reserved for Germany's unwavering commitment to the survival of the state of Israel.The statement quoted above must be seen in the context of Germany's broader coming of age in matters of international leadership.It does not describe the emphasis on preventing genocide and mass atrocities in current policy.Interpreting this aspiration and its prospects for shaping future policy requires substantial background on the past and present of Germany's political debates and bureaucratic infrastructure on crisis prevention, atrocity prevention, and responsibility to protect.This paper consists of two main sections.The first introduces the political context and recent history of Germany's institutional setup for atrocity prevention.The second describes this setup and explains its strengths and weaknesses, as well as the key challenges to be addressed in order to live up to the aspiration of making more effective contributions to the prevention of genocide and other atrocities.We conclude with an outlook on Germany's contributions to atrocity prevention in the next few years. Context: Debates on Prevention and Intervention in GermanyAtrocity prevention as a distinct category in German political debates is fairly new and still rarely used.Over the past 15 years, the issues that were discussed in the US as atrocity prevention were linked either to the responsibility to protect (R2P) or to conflict prevention, which is referred to as "crisis prevention" in the German debate.2 Part of the reason for this is evident in the language.There is no consistent, agreed-upon phrase for "mass atrocities" in German.However, the two debates about R2P and conflict prevention have been almost completely disconnected from one another: the R2P debate is tainted by its association with military intervention, while the conflict prevention debate is shaped by an emphasis on long-term, structural peacebuilding with civilian means.Accordingly, atrocity prevention is almost never treated as a category in itself, and there is little awareness of the differences between conflict and atrocity prevention.3 "Never Again What?" Contradicting Historical Lessons at the Center of the Prevention Debate Key to comprehending German views on all three categories -R2P, conflict prevention and atrocity prevention -is understanding the societal and historical debates in Germany on these topics.This 1 German Federal Government, Guidelines on Preventing Crises, Resolving Conflicts, Building Peace, July 21, 2017 (German Federal Foreign Office), accessed December 31, 2017, www.diplo.de/guidelines.2 The German policy community uses the term "crisis prevention" ("Krisenprävention") where most English speaking experts would use conflict prevention.The German usage comes with many conceptual debates on its own.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».