The Panopticon of International Law: B’Tselem’s Camera Project and the Enforcement of International Law in a Transnational Society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyzes the influence of transnational non-state actors on compliance with international legal rules as part of Michel Foucault’s power/knowledge structure. In particular, it examines the effects of the Shooting Back project, organized by the Israeli non-governmental organization B’Tselem, on the level of investigations of alleged violations of the law of occupation. In 2007, B’Tselem supplied Palestinians living in high-conflict areas with video cameras in order to capture, expose, and “seek redress for” human rights violations in the Occupied Territories. According to Jeremy Bentham’s principles of panopticism, power should be visible and unverifiable. The implementation of these principles by transnational actors is highlighted by the Shooting Back project in Israel. This project caused soldiers and their commanders to become aware of the possibility that their actions were being observed and documented without the exact location or identity of the observer being known. Shooting Back also demonstrates the potential role of transnational actors in conflict resolution. Such actors can assist in the implementation of Bentham’s principles through the geographical spread and use of affordable means of communication.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".