Notice bibliographique
Résumé
And borders of Canaanites went ... until Gaza. --Genesis 10:19 GAZA HAS historically been on border of Middle East conflict, a Palestinian hinterland and a footnote in larger dispute between Israel and its neighbors. The publication in September 2009 of report of Justice Richard Goldstone's fact-finding mission on Gaza conflict changed all that for international lawyers. This essay examines legal discourse about armed confrontation between Israel and Hamas as it moved from periphery to core of debate in United Nations, using opportunity to theorize about nature of international judging. It concludes that, although there are important legal issues raised by Gaza conflict--including status of conflict as a domestic or international one, legal assessment of Hamas's attacks on Israeli civilians, and proportionality of Israel's military response--international law has gone beyond point of usefulness. In a peculiar parallel to ancient world, law has matured to where it is primary discipline for international governance, yet its content has decayed to where it provides few objective constraints on self-serving positions taken by it s judges. A Time of Judging In November 2009, Farukh Amil, deputy permanent representative of Pakistan, speaking on behalf of Organization of Islamic Conference, introduced General Assembly Resolution 64/10 endorsing Goldstone Report. In his speech, Pakistani delegate condemned Israeli forces for war crimes and stressed the urgent need to ensure accountability. (1) His colleague A. K. Abdul Momen, representative of Bangladesh, concurred, pronouncing his country's verdict that Israel had committed systematic violations against Palestinian people. (2) In result, General Assembly affirmed conclusion reached previous month by UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Resolution S-12/1, which Kuwaiti representative to council, Dharar Abdul-Razzak Razzooqi, summarized by declaring Israel guilty of being occupying power, which instead of defending civilians, is destroying Geneva Convention. (3) The Kuwaiti assessment reflects premise of previous Human Rights Council missions that Gaza is still an occupied territory by virtue of Israel's control of all entry and exit points; overlooking, of course, doorway from Egypt through which Justice Goldstone himself entered and left at beginning and end of his mission. (4) This premise is a crucial element in Goldstone analysis and judgments that flow from it because it forms basis of view that Israel owes a higher duty of care to its domestic Gaza population than it would to a foreign nation. On other hand, it goes against Palestinian legal positioning, which has elsewhere claimed that Palestinian Authority is in full control of its territory and should therefore enjoy judicial immunities of an already established sovereign state. (5) Given Hamas's domestic governance of Gaza Strip, conclusion that Israel's belligerent occupation continues also seems at odds with classical formulation of that status; that is, where occupier exercises governmental authority to exclusion of established government (of occupied). (6) Little wonder, then, that Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon demurred when asked for his institution's best judgment about whether Gaza is still under occupation, stating that he is not in a position to say on these legal matters. (7) The sui generis nature of Gaza's legal status found no place for discussion in polarized UN considerations of Goldstone Report. Israel rested its case on its own Supreme Court ruling that Gaza conflict is a strictly international one, (8) arguing that country's inherent right of self-defense includes dictating how airspace, seacoast, and armed forces of its neighbor can be used. …
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 | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,010 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,037 | 0,010 |
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 ».