Bibliographic record
Abstract
In March 2008, the Dalai Lama made a statement on the situation in Tibet, arguing that "whether intentionally or unintentionally, some kind of cultural genocide is taking place", because "the ancient nation of Tibet with its ancient cultural heritage is dying". He made this statement in relation to the crackdown by the Chinese authorities of protests by Tibetans. Other situations in the world, such as that of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories and of the native peoples in the USA, Canada and Australia, have also been called cultural genocides. But what is cultural genocide? What does this concept mean in legal terms? How does it relate to ‘ordinary genocide’? Genocide is a well-known term in international law. The prohibition of genocide is a norm of ius cogens, which means that it cannot be derogated from and can only be altered by a subsequent norm of ius cogens. It can also be found in many international legal instruments, most well-known of which is the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention). What could be the legal meaning of cultural genocide? To what extent can the prohibition of cultural genocide be considered a norm of international law? Is it also a norm of ius cogens or perhaps international customary law? Where can evidence of such a norm be found? Cultural genocide as such is not included in any international legal instrument. However, several draft international instruments have referenced cultural genocide. In addition, aspects of a ban on cultural genocide can be found in various other international legal instruments. This contribution explores the status of cultural genocide in international law, including its scope and normative content.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".