MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2554490945

RESOLUTION 1267 COMMITTEE IN THE WAR ON TERROR A Ticking Time Bomb on Human Rights

2015· dissertation· en· W2554490945 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Demola Okeowo

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2015
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerrorismCharterPolitical scienceLawGovernment (linguistics)Al qaedaAdministration (probate law)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The United Nations Security Council's efforts to suppress and to halt the acts of international terrorism resulted in the adoption of resolution 1267 in 1999 pursuant to chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.This resolution was originally worded against the Taliban administration in Afghanistan for its alleged support and involvement in the bombing of the embassies of the United States of America in Kenya and Tanzania by Osama Bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda Network.The resolution places a 'no assets' and a 'no-fly' ban on the Taliban government or any of its representatives.The third category of the sanction places arm embargo on the Taliban and the designated individuals and entities. 1 As a result of the rising incidence of transnational terrorism, the resolution was made applicable to private individuals who are suspected to be affiliated with Osama Bin Laden or his Al-Qaeda organization.Worthy of note also is the establishment of the Resolution 1267 Committee which was saddled with the duty, inter alia, of putting the names of the suspected individuals on a list known as 'the Consolidated List' and requiring states to freeze these individuals' assets and refraining them from flying in and out of their territories.Using the experience of Mr. Abousfian Abdelrazik as documented in the recent Canadian case of Abousfian Abdelrazik v. Minister of Foreign Affairs & Attorney General of Canada as a case study and with the aid of a discussion of some established principles of international criminal law, this thesis will place the activities of the Resolution 1267 1 The arm embargo was not contained in the resolution 1267 which was adopted in 1999 but is part of the other resolutions adopted by the SC in furtherance of resolution 1267.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)Same topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207