Prisonniers de Guerre aux Mains de Leur Puissance D’origine : Pour Une Application des Conventions de Genève Jusqu’à Leur « Libération et Rapatriement Définitifs »
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper assumes that at least some of the persons detained within the framework of the global confrontation against terrorism should have been granted the status of prisoners of war. This raises the question of what should be happening to these prisoners of war once they are transferred to their country of origin. Persons deprived of freedom within the framework of theglobal confrontation against terrorism are considered as enemies by both the detaining authorities and the authorities from their country of origin. This is happening either because the latter changed between the moment they were made prisoners and the moment they were transferred (e.g. Afghanistan, Iraq) or because the have always been part of the opposition to their authorities. Being transferred to a country which should have offered them at least consular protection, and did not, means that they are once again jailed, abused, tortured, threatened, deprived of contacts with their family, etc. This paper argues that prisoners of war should continue to benefit from this status if they are transferred to a country that will continue to detain them essentially because of their participation to an armed conflict, even if the receiving country is the prisoner of war’s country of origin. This position is founded on three arguments: (1) the Geneva POW Convention specifies it continues to apply until “final release and repatriation”; (2) international obligations forbid transferring someone to a country where they fear persecution; (3) loyalty instead of nationality should be the basis to determine whether an individual is entitled to the protection of the Geneva POW Convention.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".