Self-Defense Right and Anticipatory Self-Defense Under the Rules of Contemporaneous International Law and International Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The right of self-defense is one of the most controversial recognized rights in the intentional law. So, there is wide split in the international law concerning the extent of this right. Where we can see the article (51) and what has stated from legal and political problematic issues, concerning the rule of legitimate defense. Also, in the international jurisprudence two primary streams appeared concerning the field ofinterpreting the text of article (51) from the charter of the United Nations and its relation with article (2). The first steam was expanded in the interpretation for the concept of self-defense to include the preventive self-defense. As for the second stream, it supported the narrow interpretation and it holds the view that the right of self-defense is limited to the case of being exposed to an armed attack. As the people of the supporting orientation hold the view that the international practices ensure the existence of preventive Self-defense right as a fixed right in the rules of customary international law. As for the second stream, it holds the view that the UN charter after its acknowledgment has made a radical change in the use of power in international relations and the use of power became an illegitimate act unless in the case of legitimate self-defense which occurs in the case of being subjected to an actual attack. This research aims study the self-defense and anticipatory self-defense in light of UN charter and international precedents.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".