Globalization and the Right to Food in Africa: Exploring Domestic and Extraterritorial Human Rights Obligations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Originally, human rights obligations were understood to primarily reside in domestic states. However, as a result of several phenomena, including economic globalization, state conduct increasingly affects the human rights of people across territorial borders. This is because economic globalization makes countries more exposed to both positive and negative external developments, including negative impacts on human rights. An argument could be made that African states are often compelled by the dynamics of globalization to violate the human rights of their people. Pertinent in this regard is the right to food - a right recognized under international law while millions of people in Africa suffer hunger and malnutrition. Interestingly, it would seem that these problems originate not from lack of food, but from lack of access to available food due to poverty and the incidence of global capitalism. It seems that many African states cannot, on their own, protect their citizens from hunger. Could the argument then be made that this situation is partly the result of the process of globalization and that the power of African states to rescue their citizens from hunger and malnutrition has, sometimes with their complicity, been wrenched from them? The unraveling of this research question is the premise for the assertion that there are provisions and principles in international law that can subject these other actors – especially other states – to positive and negative extraterritorial human rights obligations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".