The Making of the Inter-American Democratic Charter: A Case of Complex Multilateralism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the diplomatic process found in the making of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Many components of this dynamic point to a significant bending of the “old” pattern of multilateralism associated with the Organization of American States (OAS). The normative purpose behind the charter centered on the collective right to democracy as opposed to the traditional defense of sovereignty. The pattern of involvement contained some parallels with initiatives considered the prototypes of a “new” multilateralism, namely the campaigns against antipersonnel land mines and for an International Criminal Court. That is to say it featured an intense style and a “bottom-up” diplomacy with extensive engagement by secondary states and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Notwithstanding these features, the multilateralism in the making of the Inter-American Charter is depicted as not simply “new” but complex. Stimulated by the 2000 political crisis located in that country, leadership on the charter came from Peru not a classic middle power. The United States was not the maker of the charter but neither was it an opponent or breaker of the initiative. The early burst of speed slowed when resistance appeared from a cluster of states. Serious splits appeared among NGOs involved with the charter process on a north/south basis. To nuance the claims of “new” multilateralism is not to discount the conceptual or (as witnessed by its use in the April 2002 crisis in Venezuela) operational significance of the charter. The argument made in this article, however, is that it was this hybrid nature of the initiative that contributed to its claims of innovation and measure of success.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| 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".