Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Pursuant to Article 36 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions High Contracting Parties are in the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of warfare under an obligation to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by this Protocol or by any other rule of international law. Weapon reviews had been carried out in the Federal Armed Forces long before the entry into force of Protocol I in 1991 for the Federal Republic of Germany. But there was no specific procedure. This means that weapon reviews were carried out as part of the general ministerial work of the legal affairs directorate of the German Ministry of Defence. Although this type of procedure provided appropriate results, it had a number of shortcomings. As a result, in March 2015 for the first time a formal procedure for weapon reviews was established. Core element is a steering committee for the review of new weapons and methods of warfare under the direction of the Directorate-General for Legal Affairs. The committee includes representatives of all directorates-general that are involved in this process. This facilitates the use of comprehensive expertise in the weapon review and at the same time also allows review projects to be introduced from a wide variety of areas. By a joint service regulation enacted in June 2016, especially the procedures the steering committee carries out, some definitions and timelines were regulated. The main focus was on permanently integrating the weapon review procedure into the general rocurement process for military equipment. The idea was to connect the procedure for weapon reviews with that for procurement and to stipulate clear preconditions when a request for a weapon review hat to be submitted. As a general parameter for weapon reviews, the following rule was laid down in the joint service regulation: Whether a new weapon or method of warfare should or can be introduced ultimately depends on whether – in view of the applicable laws – there are sufficient conceivable scenarios in which a militarily sensible and operationally possible use can be judged to be legal. This rule underlines the fact that a legal review of new weapons cannot be carried out solely by means of legal expertise but also technical, medical and military-operational analyses have to be involved. The rule shows as well that, in general, a weapon review can reach a conclusive decision in only a small number of cases. Apart from that, it provides criteria for procurement decisions, which must take into consideration political, military and financial factors. Or it provides a basis – if a weapon is procured – for the development of principles of employment and rules for the use of a weapon.
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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,016 |
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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».