The Bearded Bandit, the Outlaw Cop, and the Naked Emperor: Towards a North-South (De)Construction of the Texts and Contexts of International Law's (Dis)Engagement with Terrorism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For over one hundred years, the definition of the term "terrorism" has been subjected to political propaganda. In addition, dubious self-righteous indignation or outrage, often expressed by various states or prominent politicians at the occurrence of acts of terror have often masked the participation of those same states in international terrorism. In this endless cycle of finger pointing, accusations, denials, and counter-accusations, the problematic of what constitutes terror in legal parlance has degenerated into an exercise in name-calling. This sad spectacle frustrates objective and sincere attempts at fashioning out legal and policy framework to deal with the scourge of terrorism. In this paper, I evaluate contemporary attempts at international law to deal with the problem of terrorism. In my analysis, I conclude that unless powerful states eschew their hypocritical support of terror and also seek to understand why weak entities and marginalized groups resort to "terrorism," the current outbreak of "wars on terrorism" is an exercise in futility.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.072 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".