SANCTIONS CIBLÉES ET RESPECT DES DROITS DE L’HOMME : QUELQUES RÉFLEXIONS SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ DES ORGANISATIONS INTERNATIONALES ET DE LEURS ÉTATS MEMBRES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Si la protection des droits fondamentaux constitue « l’élément essentiel au succès à long terme de la lutte contre le terrorisme », il est, dès lors, essentiel de préciser l’obligation pour les organisations internationales de répondre de leurs actes en cas de violation des droits de l’homme, en particulier dans le cas de l’édiction et de la mise en oeuvre de sanctions ciblées. Cela suppose que soient précisées les obligations applicables aux organisations en matière de droits de l’homme, ainsi que les conditions et mécanismes de la mise en oeuvre de leur responsabilité internationale. À cet égard, nous pourrons souligner un certain nombre d’insuffisances d’ordre théorique et pratique, ce qui nous conduira à nous interroger sur d’autres solutions et en particulier celle qui consisterait à engager la responsabilité des Etats pour les actes des organisations dont ils sont membres et qui ne respecteraient pas les droits fondamentaux.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".