INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND THE INTER-AMERICAN SYSTEM OF HUMAN RIGHTS PROMOTION AND PROTECTION. STRATEGIC EXPLOITATION OF WINDOWS OF OPPORTUNITY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the asymmetrical nature of international relations in the western hemisphere throughout the history of the OAS, we postulate that the dynamic of those relations explains major developments within the Inter-American human rights system, whereas the reverse is not the case. In other words, the system, its norms and constraints, have influenced little the direction of relations amongst states in the Americas. An historical overview reveals however that the system has consistently shown itself able to exploit “windows of opportunity” to push back the frontiers of its institutional limits, but this ability to impose more stringent human rights norms is never entirely unquestioned and remains highly contested by the member states. The article uses a periodisation of relations in the hemisphere on the one hand, and those within the inter-American system, on the other. It then analyses the periods that show strong correlation between international relations and innovations within the system in order to identify trends and perspectives for the future. It concludes with three possible scenarios for the immediate future of the system, based on emerging trends in international relations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".