Book Review: International Authority and the Responsibility to Protect, by Anne Orford
Bibliographic record
Abstract
THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT, an emerging international legal principle, gained notoriety in 2011 when it was invoked by the United Nations (UN) Security Council to justify sanctions against the former Libyan leadership.3 In International Authority and the Responsibility to Protect, Anne Orford argues that the signifi cance of this principle has been underestimated by many legal scholars, who view it as lacking either original normative content or genuinely 'legal' character.Orford contests such assessments by documenting the UN's use of the responsibility to protect as the foundation of a normative account of a new kind of international executive rule.Orford asserts that this form of authority has been generated through UN-led practices of administration and policing in the decolonized world over the past half-century.She argues that the responsibility to protect is being employed as a powerful (and potentially dangerous) justifi cation for the reordering of relations of domestic and territorial jurisdiction resulting from these practices.At the same time, she contends, the principle raises fundamental constitutional questions about the subjects and agents of international law-questions that have largely been ignored by its most vocal advocates.In 2001, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) identifi ed an emerging principle of international law-the responsibility of states to protect the "human security" of their citizens.4 According to the ICISS's
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.009 |
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".