Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article aims to analyse the international law issues that have arisen throughout the current Ukraine crisis. Since November 2013, when President Vyktor Yanukovich announced its intention not to go ahead in the reform process that could eventually led to the signing of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, Ukraine was literally overrun by a chain of events that led to an incorporation of Crimea into Russian territory, the 18th of March, 2014. The event was condemned by the UN General Assembly (considering the impossibility of the Security Council to adopt a resolution due to the Russian veto) and by NATO as an illegal annexation of Ukrainian territory; members of the then G8 temporarily suspended Russia from the group, and a first round of sanctions has been introduced (by the US, Canada and the European Union’s member states) against the Russian Federation. All parties to the conflict refer to international law to justify their positions. The Crimean authorities and Russia claim in particular a right to secession while the majority of states rejects that claim. The article discusses the legal claims advanced by Russia to justify its intervention in Crimea: in particular, the Russian support to the “legitimate” exercise of the right to self-determination by the Crimean population; the use of force to protect Russian citizens in Crimea and in the Eastern regions of Ukraine in accordance with article 61, par. 2 of the Russian Constitution; and finally the protection of national security interests, which were threatened by the Ukraine slipping away into the Western sphere. The article then reviews the legitimacy of international response and provides in the Conclusion a critical assessment to the questions raised by the Russian military action as well as an account of the current situation in Crimea and in the Eastern regions of Ukraine.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".