Human Rights and State Fragility: Conceptual Foundations and Strategic Directions for State-Building
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article addresses a number of conceptual issues guiding the development of a human rights-based approach to state fragility. An initial section sets out the methodological assumptions underlying the study, and locates it with reference to international human rights law and the ‘Principles on Good International Engagement in Fragile States and Situations’ drawn up by the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. This is followed by a review of key elements in the evolution of human rights standards and practice in relation to governance and state-building, particularly through their application in human rights-based approaches to development and human security. A programmatic framework for the role of international actors in the task of state-building in fragile settings is elaborated, focusing on three main elements: ensuring protection and security to individuals and communities; supporting the development of a culture of democratic governance; and strengthening the capacity for equitable access to essential public services. The study is grounded in an understanding that fundamental rights do not derive from the state, but rather that the state is formed and functions on the basis of its primary role as ‘duty-bearer’. The normative authority of human rights standards within the international system, reinforced by policy innovations such as the Responsibility to Protect and programmatic initiatives such as the Millennium Development Goals, suggests that states should be structured, supported, and assessed on the basis of their core purpose of ensuring the respect for and realization of fundamental human rights – including civil and political, and economic, social, and cultural rights. Noting the correlation between conflict and poverty, and their integral link to human rights performance, it is argued that neither factor on its own is sufficient to provide a reliable analytical framework for guiding responses to state fragility. This suggests the need for a functional approach to state-building that is contextually oriented to each case of fragility and able to accommodate a wider range of assessment factors. These factors should relate to the core principles (equality and non-discrimination, participation and empowerment, and accountability) and the analytical criteria (deprivation, exclusion, vulnerability, and justice) of human rights standards. Such an approach will recognize the priority of analysing and addressing issues of social, economic, and political exclusion, and will emphasize the importance of both process and outcome in developing the institutions required to foster and sustain cultures of democratic governance.
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 | 0.020 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.126 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.036 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".