Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses the legal consequences following the transfer of settlers into occupied territories more precisely the dichotomy between the rights of settlers the rights of protected persons victims. At the heart of the matter are the questions: What to do with settlers transferred into occupied territories in the post-conflict period? Should settlers be removed from the territory where they were transferred to allow victims to access restitution? In the alternative, should settlers be considered to have acquired a de facto ‘right to stay’ or a right not to be expelled under international human rights law the principle of humanity? Do settlers have rights? Do all settlers have the same rights? There is no consensual answer to these sensitive questions where proposed solutions vary on a spectrum from collective expulsion to the unconditional integration of settlers. Emerging from a case analysis is an international response to settler transfer that is complaisant of fait accompli resulting in a balance tilting in favor of the status quo to the not infrequent detriment of protected victims’ rights. This article attempts to reconcile conflicting rights by proposing a response framework cognizant of all relevant branches of international 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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".