Certain Issues of Human Rights’ International Legal Regulation and Ways of Their Solution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays, the universal nature of main international treaties on human rights is being called into question by certain countries with increasing frequency. At present time, representatives of some Asian, African and Near Eastern countries state that the contemporary international law of human rights is more oriented to Western countries, which had accepted Christian religion values and extensively fell under the influence of Roman law. This point of view is worth noticing, despite the fact that Western scholars and experts permanently assert that the international law as a whole and the law of human rights in particular are not a product of the West only, but are a global one. This paper is devoted to searching for an answer to the question of to what extent positions of the both parties have been proved and what the international community should do to find a common ground between the opposite camps in this issue. It also determines the nature and peculiarities of the International Law of Human Rights as part of the universal international legal system, reveals the merits and defects of “Universalism” and “Cultural Relativism” conceptions and shows that the effective implementation of international legal norms on human rights is impossible without taking into consideration the peculiarities of historical and cultural development as well as ethnical structure of different countries, which determine specific character and content of national archetypes of the attitude to the law.
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 | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".