The Capacity to Protect: Diplomatic Protection of Dual Nationals in the 'War on Terror'
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Covert, extrajudicial removals of suspected terrorists from Western countries to face interrogation in nations using torture are now a feature of the post-9/11 world. These ‘extraordinary renditions’ may transgress human rights obligations. They may also engage an often forgotten principle of international law: diplomatic protection of nationals. In the best documented rendition to date, the individual removed by the United States and tortured in Syria was a national, not only of the latter state, but also of another country, Canada. The question this article asks is whether international law stands in the way of countries like Canada extending diplomatic protection to their rendered dual nationals. The article concludes that old rules precluding protection in a contest between two states of nationality are no longer part of international law. For this and other reasons, dual nationality is not a legal bar to diplomatic protection of persons swept up in extraordinary renditions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 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".