Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTIONHuman security is a central pillar of Canadian foreign policy; hence it is important to determine the government's efficacy in this area. This paper assesses the extent to which Canada is exercising effective leadership in support of two key human security objectives: promoting the report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), responsibility to protect, and supporting the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Canadian government's record of leadership is assessed in terms of its own objectives.1Three types of leadership are explored: intellectual, entrepreneurial, and implementation leadership.2 Intellectual leadership involves offering fresh ideas, new perspectives, and creative ways of conceptualizing problems. Entrepreneurial leadership entails forming like-minded coalitions, engineering agreements, and facilitating the negotiation of compromise solutions. Implementation leadership involves providing the resources to translate policy positions into practice and leading by example at the implementation stage-what is often referred to as walking the talk.The three forms of leadership are interrelated. Successful intellectual leadership is relatively rare in international relations but it can be groundbreaking when it does occur. Yet intellectual leadership depends heavily on entrepreneurial leadership to sell its creative ideas. Canada has a reputation for exercising skilful entrepreneurial leadership to create international norms and facilitate international agreements, but these instruments are only useful if they are translated into concrete actions; hence implementation leadership is also required. There are a variety of ways in which implementation leadership can be exercised: setting an example for others to follow; ensuring that one's own legislation is compatible with international obligations; allocating the resources necessary to fulfil one's own commitments; and providing other states with the expertise and tangible resources to enable them to meet their international responsibilities.The article begins by identifying Canada's objectives apropos the responsibility to protect and the International Criminal Court so as to have a basis for evaluating success. It then compares and contrasts the extent to which Canada has exercised effective intellectual, entrepreneurial, and implementation leadership in each of the two cases. It concludes that Canada did not demonstrate intellectual leadership in either case. It has, however, consistently shown strong entrepreneurial leadership. There have been few opportunities to exercise implementation leadership apropos the responsibility to protect because it is still at stage of norm creation. Although the International Criminal Court is still in its infancy, Canada has demonstrated considerable implementation leadership in support of its establishment These findings are much more positive than those of some of my other recent writings, in which I commended Canada for its entrepreneurial leadership in support of norm creation but lamented its failure to provide the resources necessary to implement its verbal commitments.3 The reasons for these differences are explored briefly, as is the importance of timing and factors beyond Canada's control-the actions of other states.CANADIAN OBJECTIVESResponsibility to protectCanada has both long- and short-term objectives pertaining to the responsibility to protect.4 Although secretary General Kofi Annan circulated the report as an official UN document and incorporated it into his proposals for institutional reform,5 it continues to be highly controversial and thus far from being translated into legally binding norms. Canada-the world's principal proponent of the responsibility to protect-wants norms in place that ensure that in future the most grievous cases of mass killings and genocide will be met with interventions that are successful and cost effective. …
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".