A Human Rights-Based Approach to the Global Regulation of Humanitarian Relief: The Emerging Obligation to Incorporate Local Participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides that the humanitarian aid operations of the European Union ("EU") "shall be intended to provide ad hoc assistance and relief and protection for people in third countries who are victims of natural or man-made disasters, in order to meet the humanitarian needs resulting from these different situations." 3 Additionally, the Food Assistance Convention, ratified by Canada, Switzerland, Denmark, the United States, Austria, Finland, EU and Japan in 2012, specifically regulates the provision of food aid to vulnerable populations, 4 aiming to ensure that the most vulnerable populations are granted appropriate relief food in a timely and effective manner.5 Other treaties impose specific obligations to provide humanitarian assistance.The Protocol Relating to Conflict Resolution, Peace-Keeping and Security of the Economic Community of West African States ("ECOWAS") provides that the sub-regional organization may participate in the provision of humanitarian assistance.6 Specifically, the Protocol recognizes that ECOWAS has a responsibility to "intervene to alleviate the suffering of the populations and restore life to normalcy in the event of crises, conflict and disaster."7 The right to provide humanitarian assistance has also been affirmed by "soft law" instruments such as resolutions adopted under the auspices of the U.N. and its institutions.In 1991, the U.N. General Assembly adopted the Resolution on Strengthening of the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Emergency Assistance, one of several instruments designed to facilitate effective delivery of relief within states.8 This resolution affirmed the 3. Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union art. 214.
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 | 0.025 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.073 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.023 |
| 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".