Minerva’s Allies: States, Secretariats, and Individuals in the Emergence of the Responsibility to Protect Norm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In September 1999, reflecting on the Rwandan genocide and NATO’s Kosovo campaign, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan challenged the UN General Assembly (GA) to come to terms with the question of humanitarian intervention. He sparked intense debate, but consensus proved elusive as ardent supporters of humanitarian intervention clashed with staunch defenders of state sovereignty. One year later, Canada announced a new initiative designed to bridge the impasse: the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). The Commission’s 2001 report sought to reframe the issue of humanitarian intervention in terms of an international “responsibility to protect” civilians from large-scale loss of life or ethnic cleansing if their own states proved unwilling or unable to do so (ICISS 2001a). Despite initial setbacks, this notion — often referred to as R2P — has achieved considerable international recognition, culminating in its unanimous endorsement (in modified form) at the 2005 UN World Summit. Although important components of the ICISS report were sacrificed to secure this endorsement (Coleman, forthcoming) and serious challenges to the norm’s implementation remain, this was a remarkable case of international norm building. R2P shaped contemporary debates about military intervention in Darfur (for example, Williams and Bellamy 2005), was reaffirmed by the Security Council in 2006 (UNSC 2006, §4), and in 2011 the Council invoked R2P in its responses to crises in Côte d’Ivoire and Libya (UNSC 2011a; UNSC 2011b; UNSC 2011c).
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".