Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper have mainly three points: developments process of conception of the responsibility to protect (R2P), debates of conception of R2P in UN and international legal issues in application practice(Ex: Libya case) of R2P regarding military intervention and international humanitarian intervention. The responsibility to protect (R2P) is a norm or set of principles based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege, but a responsibility. R2P focuses on preventing and halting four crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleaning. R2P is a norm, not a law in International society. R2P provides a framework for using tools that already exist (such as mediation, early warning mechanism, economic sanctions and chapter VI powers of UN) to prevent mass atrocities. Civil society organizations, States, region organizations, international institutions all have a role to play in the operationalization of R2P. The authority to employ the last resort and intervene militarily rests solely with United Nations Security Council and the General Assembly. Following the genocide in Rwanda and the international community’s failure to intervene, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in his Millennium Report asked the question, when does the international community intervene for the sake of protect civilians? The Canadian government established the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) to September 2000. In December 2001, ICSS released its report. “Responsibility to Protect. Building on the idea that sovereignty is a responsibility, the report outlined that the international community has the responsibility to prevent mass atrocities with economic, political, and social measures, to react to current crises by diplomatic engagement, more coercive, military intervention as a last resort, and to rebuild by bringing security and justice to the victim population and by finding the root cause of the mass atrocities. The African Union pioneered the concept that the international community has a responsibility to intervene in crisis situations if the State failing to protect populations. In the founding charter of the AU in 2005, Africans nations declared that “the protection of human and people’s rights” would be a principle objective of the AU and that AU had right “to intervene in a Member State pursuant to a decision of the Assembly in respect of grave circumstances, namely war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.” On March 19, 2011, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) approved resolution 1973 which reiterated the responsibility of the Libyan authorities to protect the Libyan population. UNSC Resolution 1973 on Libya case was the first application of R2P. The UNSC resolution reaffirmed “that parties to armed conflicts bear the primary responsibility to take all feasible steps to ensure the protection of civilians....” It demanded “an immediate cease-fire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute ‘crimes against humanity’.... It imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace, a no-fly zone, and tightened sanctions on the Gadaffi regime and its supporters.” The subsequent military action by NATO resulted in mixed opinions. Detractors of the intervention believe that problems in Libya are best resolved amongst Libyans. The Libyan case exposes international legal issues and a fundamental moral dilemma. However, there are many criticisms in practice of R2P from prospective of international law as follows: - R2P and national sovereignty - R2P Scope too narrow - Use of Military Intervention - R2P may promote Humanitarian Intervention - Selectivity in the Security Council of UN Furthermore, R2P has yet three conceptual institutional and political challenges.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
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".