MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W224669515 · doi:10.82308/3122

The law of neutrality in outer space /

2008· article· en· W224669515 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Robert W. Jarman

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpace exploration and regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of the General CounselChinese People’s Liberation ArmyMcGill UniversityU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsOuter spaceNeutralityLawDoctrineSpace (punctuation)Political scienceSpace lawLaw and economicsComputer securityComputer scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Satellite telecommunications, global navigation and remote sensing systems are key drivers in the ongoing transformation of an industrial based global economic order to one increasingly dominated by information services. A growing number of States are establishing an independent presence in outer space and all States (and indeed, individuals) can access a broad range of affordable space-related products and services (e.g., Google Earth imagery, GPS receivers, and global voice and data transmissions). Consistent with broad historical trends, these technologies are inevitably influencing the way States think about, plan for, and conduct warfare. Inspired by the prospect of seizing the ultimate "high ground" of outer space and achieving "information superiority" over an enemy, militaries around the world are rapidly pursuing independent space capabilities and adapting their strategies, doctrine and force structures to reflect these capabilities. These trends have prompted various political and legal efforts to ban the placement and/or use of weapons in outer space. As these efforts have failed to gain traction and seem unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future, this thesis argues that existing bodies of international law grounded in a pragmatic acceptance of armed conflict must be consulted if humankind wishes to mitigate the impact and spread of warfare conducted in, from and through outer space. In particular, this thesis will examine how the traditional customary principles underlying the law of neutrality may be reconceptualized by States to serve as a mechanism to mediate competing claims of belligerents and neutrals during armed conflict in outer space. After a brief introduction, Chapters One and Two will develop the economic and military trends discussed above. Chapter Three will provide an overview of the relevant international law governing military activities in outer space. Chapter four will analyze the law governing State responsibility for outer space activities to determine which State(s) will bear primary international responsibility for satellite support provided to belligerents during armed conflict. Chapter Five will provide a detailed overview of the law of neutrality and attempt a preliminary analysis of how belligerent and neutral States may seek to adapt this law to suit their interests during armed conflict in outer space. Concluding that the law of neutrality may serve to mitigate the impact and spread of armed conflict in outer space, this thesis offers various proposals designed to facilitate the application of this law.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.715
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicSpace exploration and regulationFrench-language works237,207