Bibliographic record
Abstract
Why did ASEAN, one of the most recalcitrant regions to the global human rights regime, decide to establish a regional human rights mechanism?Why did they say 'yes' to human rights in the late 2000s, but not in other time periods?While there have been numerous attempts to explain ASEAN's soft liberalization in recent years, many of them do not seem to capture some puzzling pictures of ASEAN's turn to liberalism.In particular, they are limited in explaining temporal variance in ASEAN's decisions as well as consensus made by member states despite their different preferences.This article argues that ASEAN's liberal turn was not a reflection of the power of human rights per se, but about ASEAN's collective decisions to manage the relations with idea-promoters.Key Words: ASEAN, human rights, liberal ideas outheast Asia had been one of the most resistant regions to the global human rights regime for years.Both the concept and application of human rights had been challenged by most member states, which viewed the idea as incompatible with their principles for social unity and stability, effective economic development, and sovereignty.However, their positions were shifted recently, at least at the regional level.Since 2003, they have set out plans to establish 'Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Communities', which include the institutionalization of liberal ideas encompassing human rights.At the ASEAN ministerial meeting in 2007, the members reached a consensus on institutionalizing a set of liberal principles within the newly established ASEAN Charter and ASEAN Inter-governmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) (Katsumata 2009). Also, the governments signed the ASEAN Declaration on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers. Moreover, ASEAN leaders agreed to establish the Commission on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Women and Children (ACWC) aside from the AICHR.Why did such a recalcitrant region decide to establish a regional human rights mechanism?Why did they say 'yes' to human rights in the late 2000s, but not in other time periods?How did the member states with different national positions about human rights norms reach a consensus on the decision?While
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".