Hacia Una Definición Única De Conflicto Armado En El Derecho Internacional Humanitario: Crítica De Los Conflictos Armados Internacionalizados (Towards a Single Definition of Armed Conflict in International Humanitarian Law: A Critique of Internationalized Armed Conflict)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La version Ingles de este documento se puede encontrar http://ssrn.com/abstract=1946414El derecho internacional humanitario aplica normas distintas segun que un conflicto armado tenga caracter internacional o interno. Los comentaristas reconocen que la distincion es arbitraria, deseable, dificil de justificar y que frustra el proposito humanitario del derecho de la guerra la mayoria de los conflictos belicos actuales. Estas opiniones no son nuevas. En 1948, el Comite Internacional de la Cruz Roja (CICR) publico un informe el que recomendaba que los Convenios de Ginebra hiciesen aplicable el derecho internacional humanitario integramente en todos los casos de conflicto armado sin caracter internacional, especialmente las guerras civiles, los conflictos coloniales o las guerras de religion que puedan producirse el territorio de una o varias Altas Partes Contratantes. En 1971, presento un proyecto a la Conferencia de Expertos ubernamentales el que hacia una nueva propuesta tendente a lograr que todas las normas del derecho internacional humanitario sean aplicables las guerras civiles cuando se produzca una intervencion de tropas extranjeras. El ano siguiente, el CICR hizo una propuesta mas matizada esa misma direccion. Por ultimo, 1978, la delegacion noruega de expertos esa Conferencia propuso, de nuevo sin exito, que se abandonasen las dos categorias de conflicto armado favor de un unico derecho para todos los tipos de conflicto armado. Es un tanto sorprendente que, desde entonces, hayan cesado los llamamientos favor de un derecho internacional humanitario unificado, aunque persistan numerosas expresiones de insatisfaccion con la dicotomia entre conflictos armados internacionales y conflictos armados internos.En el presente articulo se reimpulsa la reivindicacion de un conjunto normativo unico para los conflictos armados, demostrando que el regimen actual no permite abordar los conflictos que constan de elementos tanto internacionales como internos, es decir, los conflictos armados internacionalizados. Si bien no se pretende abarcar exhaustivamente el contenido de un derecho unico aplicable a todos los conflictos armados, se esbozan las lineas generales de un marco unificado que permitiria tener mejor cuenta las complejidades de las guerras internacionalizadas.The strict division of international humanitarian law into rules applicable in international armed conflict and those relevant to armed conflicts not of an international nature is almost universally criticized. Even though attempts to abandon the distinction were made at every stage of negotiation of the Geneva Conventions and their Protocols, calls for a single body of international humanitarian law have since died out. This article revives those calls by highlighting the inadequacies of the current dichotomy’s treatment of internationalized armed conflicts, namely, armed conflicts that involve internal and international elements.It concludes that the law developed to determine this “internationalization” has created convoluted tests that in practice are near impossible to apply. Even once internationalized, it is difficult to determine the applicable law as relationships and military presences change. Moreover, the international/non-international dichotomy in international humanitarian law has proved susceptible to incredible political manipulation, often at the expense of humanitarian protection. Further considerations of substantive aspects of a single law of armed conflict will be essential in the development of greater humanitarian protection during internationalized armed conflict.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".