Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".