The Copenhagen Process on the Handling of Detainees in International Military Operations: A Canadian Perspective on the Challenges and Goals of Humane Warfare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The face of war has changed significantly since the end of the Second World War, and it will in all likelihood continue to do so. The apparent historical trend of warfare has shifted from the international, to the internal, to the internationalized. Yet despite the constant evolution in the kinds of wars that humans and States wage against one another, international law—and international humanitarian law (IHL), in particular—has remained relatively ineffective in keeping pace with the legal demands of post-modern warfare. To date, the emergence of terrorist cells, ‘enemy combatants’, and other strictly non-State actors involved in armed conflicts around the globe have proved to be elusive categories to the antiquated legal distinctions present in the vast body of IHL, grounded primarily upon the four Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols. The Copenhagen Process on the Handling of Detainees in International Military Operations is a promising attempt to remedy this seeming legal vacuum. Comparing and contrasting the practices of the Canadian and Danish military forces handling of detainees while operating in Afghanistan, this article suggests that the Copenhagen Process, although not a ‘perfect’ system of inclusivity and transparency, is nevertheless a meritorious development in the evolution of IHL that should be supported by all those with an interest in preserving the dignity and well-being of those most deleteriously affected by the threats of warfare—the human beings on the ground.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".