Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Even as the international community commemorates the 50th anniversary of the deployment of the first UN peacekeeping mission, the world is facing a crisis of protection. Inter-state warfare may be becoming a thing of the past, but massive displacement, human insecurity, and civilian casualties are on the rise. The new normative principle and operative doctrine which is attracting increasing attention, enthusiasm, and, in some quarters, alarm, is the notion of a “responsibility to protect” (R2P)—that the international community has a duty to protect civilians from massive human rights violations where their governments are unable or willing to provide security. R2P is the present-day response to a problem every bit as big, and urgent, as peacekeeping had been 50 years ago. The ongoing violence in Afghanistan, the DRC, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Uganda, and elsewhere serves as a poignant reminder that our current international protection regime is still too weak and too limited to provide security for all. The UN has often failed to act quickly and effectively, while ad hoc coalition and regional initiatives (which have emerged as a possible alternative to UN-led—and, even, UN-authorized—operations) have caused serious concerns about their capacity, accountability, and legitimacy to intervene. The global war on terrorism has further complicated efforts to protect human security, with many nations less willing to send armed forces into a sovereign country. The question this report addresses is how the international community can now turn this normative principle into an operative doctrine that will bring security to vulnerable civilians around the world. The responsibility to protect, to be sure, is first and foremost a responsibility to prevent conflicts from breaking out. It is also a responsibility to rebuild, reconcile, and reconstruct a post-conflict environment. This triple notion of R2P calls for a comprehensive approach to human security and sustainable development. But the focus of this report is on finding ways to protect civilians from large-scale violence when it is already too late to prevent yet too soon to rebuild. How can we ensure an effective and timely response to a grave crisis? Part I provides a holistic overview of the scope and significance of the developing norm of protection. It surveys the key doctrinal developments, transnational advocacy, codification, and international practice that have together turned “sovereignty on its head” since the early 1990s and contributed to the gradual evolution of R2P and, in particular, those factors that have enabled its re-emergence since 2001. Part II considers the strategies to take the norm of protection forward. It proposes the creation of a national R2P agenda and the construction of an international protection regime through the joint efforts of a transnational R2P coalition. Part III presents a series of pragmatic guidelines on operationalizing the norm of protection in the field, with a specific focus on Darfur.
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 | 0,045 | 0,040 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,015 | 0,037 |
| Communication savante | 0,032 | 0,068 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,021 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,069 | 0,087 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,028 | 0,009 |
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 ».