The Perils of "Consensus": Hans Kelsen and the Legal Philosophy of the United Nations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the debates preceding Operation Iraqi Freedom,' most Americans, even those who usually consider themselves seasoned political observers, were surprised at the vehemence with which many at the United Nations and other international assizes not only opposed the specific policies of President George W. Bush and his administration, but also contested the very notion that the United States government could be permitted to stake a unilateral position that is different from the consensus of the world body. Even prescinding from the specific case of the military intervention in Iraq by the armed forces of the United States and its allies, many at the United Nations and the various nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that, together with the U.N. and its bureaucracy, pass nowadays as the institutional incarnation of the international community, have excoriated the United States in recent years for its unilateralism, refusing to defer to the multilateral international consensus on such matters as the Kyoto Protocol on environmental change, 2 the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel land mines, 3 and the Rome Statute creating the International Criminal Court. 4 There are a number of different explanations proposed for these tensions. According to one school of thought, tensions and even heated exchanges have been and are part and parcel of international diplomacy. Hence, the exponents of this explanation counsel to do nothing: allow time to pass and tempers to cool, recognize that, as former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Charles W. Freeman, Jr. observed, estrangement from former friends invites charges of perfidy, but a state's bargaining power is usually enhanced, rather than
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".