Internal Self-Determination and the Role of Territorial Autonomy as a Tool for the Resolution of Ethno-Political Disputes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the end of the Cold War, autonomy arrangements have been increasingly perceived and used as tools for resolving ethno-political conflicts as well as part of the affirmation of indigenous claims and self-determination struggles. One important reason for this is that the all-or-nothing dichotomy of statehood and external self-determination seems to have sustained conflict at least as much as having resolved conflict. However, the theoretical underpinnings of territorial autonomy have not yet been elaborated in international law. While the Canadian Supreme Court started formulating some requirements of what it takes to have a “meaningful access to government” in the Reference re Secession of Quebec case, the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice seems to pull international law back into the perennial discussion of secession, this time dubbed “remedial”. Territorial autonomy as an institution is about more than the division of competences between centre and periphery; it is about creating comprehensive structural solutions and processes of representation, accountability and decision-making. International law needs thus to engage seriously with the conditions influencing the quality, stability and adaptability of territorial autonomy arrangements. Among those are issues of timing; responses to the traumas of conflict; the quality of democratic involvement and institutional design; as well as the influence of external actors.
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 | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.100 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| 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".