Human Rights in Foreign Policy: Lessons for South Africa from Canadian Experience?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to narrow the 'compliance gap' between the 'idea of universal human rights and practices of human wrongs', differences in human rights understandings and practices between countries of the North and the South must be reduced. Towards this end, it is useful to critically examine the experiences of Northern countries which have long professed their dedication to human rights. This article specifically examines lessons for post-apartheid South Africa from Canadian experience - although the findings should be of wider interest. It reflects on three interrelated dimensions of Canada's international human rights activity, each of which resonates strongly in South Africa and elsewhere: (1) the preference for multilateralism; (2) the emphasis on 'quiet diplomacy' and 'constructive engagement'; and (3) the growing importance of actors in civil society, both independently and in conjunction with government policy makers. It finds that each of these dimensions is distinctly double-edged in its impact on Canada's human rights foreign policy. Only through a clear understanding of the strengths, limits, and interrelations of each of these policy dimensions can performance be improved and prevarication and hypocrisy limited.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".