The fragmented nature of the international refugee regime and its consequences:
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction This chapter critically examines the emergence of a global regime of accountability in international law in the area of refugee protection since the end of the Second World War. The 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees [1951 Convention hereafter] puts forward the claim of universal jurisprudence that supposedly overrides private norms and domestic legal practices in the area of refugee protection. However, in their application, the Convention and later developments in the area of domestic renditions of refugee jurisprudence systematically fell short of this intent. The chapter posits that the main reason for this failure is that the current international refugee regime was mainly designed to provide a back-up source for the protection of seriously at-risk persons. Its primary function, since its Westphalian origins, has been to support the state-centric status quo in international politics. The chapter regards international refugee law and, in particular, the 1951 Convention as an overly guarded safety net used only in the event that a state entirely fails to meet its most basic protective responsibilities towards its citizens and within constraints protecting the needs of the refugee-receiving states first and foremost. This observation is supported by the fact that the 1951 Convention and subsequent refugee jurisprudence disperses the duty of protection in a piecemeal fashion towards other states and international institutions. Furthermore, the Convention's applications vary immensely even among the states who are party to it.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".