Authorizing Humanitarian Intervention: Hard Choices in Saving Strangers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.In recent years, the question of authorization for the use of force for humanitarian purposes has become more contentious than ever. Participants on both sides of the debate, namely those rejecting any exception to the requirement for UN authorization and the proponents of surpassing this in cases of exceptional humanitarian emergencies, do not seem to have reached any consensus. This article examines these opposing arguments, their legal interpretations, and tests the theoretical assumptions against state practice through a review of the record of humanitarian interventions since the 1990s. The final purpose is to assess two of the most promising alternatives for authorization: the UN and regional organizations. This analysis suggests some implications of the debate for the perception of the UN role in authorizing interventions, in addition to determining the need for alternative mechanisms to authorize interventions for humanitarian purposes. Résumé.Dans les dernières années, la question de l'autorisation du recours à la force dans des missions à but humanitaire est devenu un sujet particulièrement contesté de l'actualité. Les participants aux deux côtés du débat, ceux qui rejettent toute exception à l'autorisation préalable des Nations Unies et ceux qui proposent de court-circuiter l'ONU dans des situations humanitaires d'une urgence exceptionnelle seulement, ne semblent pas pourvoir atteindre de consensus. Cet article examime ces deux vues opposées et leurs interprétations juridiques et met leurs hypothèses théoriques à l'épreuve de la pratique en considérant les missions humanitaires entreprises depuis 1990. Le but ultime consiste à évaluer deux des alternatives d'autorisation les plus prometteuses : celle des Nations Unies et celle d'organisations régionales. Cette analyse suggère certaines implications du débat quant à la perception du rôle des Nations Unies dans le processus d'autorisation des interventions et révèle, d'autre part, le besoin de mécanismes nouveaux pour autoriser ces missions humanitaires.
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 | 0.031 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".