Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the late 1950s, the United Nations (UN) and other international actors have developed and systematised a body of practices aimed at ‘the maintenance of order’ and ‘the protection of life’ in the decolonised world. These practices range from fact-finding and the provision of humanitarian assistance to peacekeeping, the management of refugee camps and territorial administration. As the UN and humanitarian organisations expanded and consolidated those practices, a new form of authority began to emerge. This book is an exploration of the ways in which those practices of governing and that form of authority have been represented. It focuses in particular upon a new basis for justifying and rationalising international rule that emerged at the beginning of the twenty-first century. The international authority to undertake executive action for protective ends was given a detailed normative articulation in the form of a 2001 report by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) entitled ‘The Responsibility to Protect’. ICISS was an initiative, sponsored by the Canadian government, undertaken in response to serious concerns about the legality and legitimacy of the 1999 North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) action in Kosovo. The responsibility to protect concept is premised upon the notion, to quote former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, that ‘the primary raison d’être and duty' of every state is to protect its population. If a state ‘manifestly’ fails to protect its population, the responsibility to do so shifts to the international community.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".