Hannah Arendt's “Right to Have Rights”: A Philosophical Context for Human Security
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary international legal theorists and policymakers have endorsed the concept of “human security” in an effort to mitigate the same categories of suffering that Hannah Arendt sought to address with her concept of a “right to have rights.” Like Arendt, human security theorists and practitioners today focus on the plight of individuals in distress as a consequence of the unrealizability in practice of their human rights. But despite the popularity of the goal of human security, the content of this concept remains unsettled. This article argues that Arendt's notion of a right to have rights offers important insights to those who wish to develop the idea of human security in a way that primarily serves humanitarian, rather than strategic, goals, and who seek an interculturally legitimizable basis for human rights, rather than a conventionally universalist foundation.
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 | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| 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".