‘Rule of Law’ initiatives and the liberal peace: the impact of politicised reform in post‐conflict states
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Strengthening the 'Rule of Law' (RoL) has emerged as a key requirement in the reconstruction of conflict-affected states. No longer simply a philosophical ideal, RoL now exists as a tangible set of policies created and implemented by international actors, to which conflict-affected states are expected to conform. Masked in the neutral, apolitical rhetoric of blind and objective justice, RoL programming is in fact a political tool within the larger liberal peacebuilding project. Its employment as such mutes its potential contribution to constructing a positive peace as it often creates new socio-political tensions and distorts accountability structures. An analysis of reforms in Kosovo under the United Nations administration illustrates the potential for liberal RoL reforms to increase insecurity in the short term and threaten the sustainability of peacebuilding reforms in the long term. Instrumental use of RoL programming thus provides further evidence of weaknesses and contradictions within the politicised liberal peacebuilding project, necessitating reconsideration of its role in post-conflict transformations.
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 | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".