In Omnia Paratus: Of War, Conflict, and International Law in the Contemporary World System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to Hobbesian theory, no cure for conflict or violence can ever exist. As a result, we live in a world of perpetual anarchy and conflict. However, the reasons for this anarchy have remained a contentious point of debate, particularly among scholars of political theory. Using the current war in Iraq and Russia's war with Georgia in 2008, this article examines the chaotic state of the contemporary world system. In doing so, it applies, compares, and contrasts the theories presented in Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan and John Locke’s The Second Treatise of Civil Government. Through this analysis, it is shown that Lockean theory is inadequate in explaining the anarchic state of the international system. Beyond the comparison of the two theorists addressed in this article, a brief exploration is also made of the inherent shortcomings of international law as a system that seeks to maintain order. Questions are raised regarding the efficacy and legality of the United States’ second invasion of Iraq, as well as considerations for the larger impact that the war ultimately makes on the paradigm of international 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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".