International Policymaking. The Case of the Norm of the Responsibility to Protect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The norm of the Responsibility to Protect has received increasing international attention in the last few years. In summary Responsibility to Protect refers to a concept that arose in the late 1990s in Canada which emphasizes the responsibility that governments and the international community have to protect their population (Bellamy, 2009). Thus, it is a concept that attempts to redefine sovereignty from its traditional basis on rights to one based on duties and responsibilities (Brunnee & Toope, 2006). The importance of the Responsibility to Protect as a concept is that it is an attempt to shape global governance at the highest level. Therefore, it is an example of policymaking at the global level and serves as a good case study of how a concept arises, can be transformed into a norm, and ultimately is institutionalized in international law. There is a final step which involves the operationalization of the norm and this is the stage in which R2D can be found at the moment. This paper is divided into two main sections. The first section provides a brief history of the development of the concept and its transformation into a norm. A second section provides an analysis of R2D in terms of the main participants in policymaking, some of the outputs of the policy, and finally a discussion on the outcome.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".