Dealing with Compliance and Non-Compliance: The Case of the Landmine Convention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the mechanism of compliance control of the Landmine Convention (the Ottawa Convention). Its purpose is to elucidate the process of dialogue and persuasion when it deals with compliance issues. The article deals with compliance issues relating to Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention. They provide for the obligation to destroy the stockpiled landmines and the obligation to remove and destroy the landmines in the mined areas, respectively. The study divides cases into two categories: potential non-compliance and actual non-compliance. Case studies of both categories indicate that States engage themselves in a dialogue with the rest of the States Parties, in the form of Meetings of the States Parties, Review Conferences and also in less formal fora. The dialogue leads to a formulation of realistic strategies for compliance with the obligations in question. Case studies indicate the acceptance of such strategies, both by the State Party facing the problem and the rest of the States Parties.
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 | 0.046 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.030 | 0.017 |
| 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".