ENDS AND MEANS IN POLITICS: INTERNATIONAL LAW AS FRAMEWORK FOR POLITICAL DECISION-MAKING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The international legal system in place since 1945 is based on two core principles: the repudiation of violence as a means of political action, and the protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms. It reflects the conviction that threats to international peace and security are best addressed collectively, through the procedures and institutions established for that purpose. The reality brought to the fore in the aftermath of September 11th, 2001 is very different. This paper argues that the military intervention in Afghanistan and other anti-terrorism measures undertaken by states have revealed a profound disregard for the principles and standards of international law. Far from constituting an effective response to current security concerns, the resort to force in a manner neither in keeping with the legal criteria for self-defense nor authorized by the UN Security Council, coupled with excessive restrictions of human rights, poses a threat to the very essence of the present international legal order. The paper makes a case for international law as basis for the conduct of international relations and framework for political decision-making, arguing that it is in the interest of all that those involved in political processes accept and implement its standards and principles. The paper specifically addresses the way in which international law applies to states’ efforts to respond to crimes such as those of September 11th and emphasizes the need to strengthen the rule of law not only as a sine qua non for any effective anti-terrorism strategy, but also as a matter of national self-interest.
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 | 0.031 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.086 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.033 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".