Кединому определению вооруженного конфликта: анализ интернационализированного вооруженного конфликта (Towards a Single Definition of Armed Conflict in International Humanitarian Law: A Critique of Internationalized Armed Conflict)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The English version of this paper can be found at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1946414В зависимости от характера вооруженного конфликта – международного или внутреннего – применяются различные нормы международного гуманитарного права. По мнению авторов работ на эту тему, такое различие «произвольное», «нежелательное», которое «трудно обосновать» и которое «сводит на нет гуманитарную цель права войны в большинстве случаев происходящих сейчас войн». Это не новая точка зрения. В 1948 г. Международный Комитет Красного Креста (МККК) представил доклад, где рекомендовал применять в полном объеме международное гуманитарное право в соответствии с Женевскими конвенциями «во всех случаях вооруженных конфликтов, которые не носят международного характера, особенно в случаях гражданской войны, колониальных конфликтов или религиозных войн, которые могут происходить на территории одной или нескольких Высоких Договаривающихся Сторон».The strict division of international humanitarian law into rules applicable in international armed conflict and those relevant to armed conflicts not of an international nature is almost universally criticized. Even though attempts to abandon the distinction were made at every stage of negotiation of the Geneva Conventions and their Protocols, calls for a single body of international humanitarian law have since died out. This article revives those calls by highlighting the inadequacies of the current dichotomy’s treatment of internationalized armed conflicts, namely, armed conflicts that involve internal and international elements.It concludes that the law developed to determine this “internationalization” has created convoluted tests that in practice are near impossible to apply. Even once internationalized, it is difficult to determine the applicable law as relationships and military presences change. Moreover, the international/non-international dichotomy in international humanitarian law has proved susceptible to incredible political manipulation, often at the expense of humanitarian protection. Further considerations of substantive aspects of a single law of armed conflict will be essential in the development of greater humanitarian protection during internationalized armed conflict.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".