The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and International Trusteeship: Plus Ça Change Plus Ça Reste La Même Chose?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considered by some as an established norm (albeit young and of disputed benefits), R2P has largely been accepted as representing an emerging norm, although what this means exactly remains controversial. The main R2P foundational documents consist of the ICISS Report and paragraphs 138 and 139 of the R2P section in the World Summit Outcome. However, they convey two manifestly different versions of R2P, with the World Summit Outcome, which reflects the UN political consensus, narrowing the scope of R2P as developed in the ICISS Report from ideal to real. Since then, even that compromise has been faltering with some early proponents reconsidering their position and expressing reservations. Even the original developers of the norm have been divided, with co-chair Gareth Evans4 promoting the narrow UN version, and with Lloyd Axworthy and Allan Rock preferring a broader interpretation. This divergence has nourished a plethora of theoretical debates paralleled by extensive and intensive discussions surrounding the political and legal applicability of the concept.This paper analyses only the conceptual and legal – not the political or operational – aspects of R2P and employs the narrow World Summit Outcome interpretation. Accordingly, R2P denotes a responsibility to protect the individual and groups of individuals (not the state) against the Four Crimes mentioned above. The responsibility falls first to the state where the atrocity takes place, and then by default to other states. It comprises the so-called three 'pillars' of action: The first pillar represents a state’s responsibility to protect its people from the Four Crimes; the second pillar focuses on a state's responsibility to come to the aid of another state at that state’s request (whether the request is made directly to the state in question or to any/all other states); and the third pillar mobilizes the collective responsibility of the international community of states to enforce protective humanitarian action. A three-pronged approach consisting of (peaceful) prevention, of reaction by peaceful or, if necessary, by military means, and of post-crisis/conflict rebuilding applies to the R2P second and third pillars. Pillar 3 requires UN authorization, Pillar 2 may require it.
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 | 0.018 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".