Responsibility Determined: Assessing the Relationship Between the Doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect and the Right of Self-Determination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite consistent affirmations of the right of self-determination by states, international organizations and international courts, practical invocations of the right have often been met with apprehension outside of the colonial context. This paper suggests that this unease may be the result of the uncertainty surrounding the margins of the right, particularly with regard to claims of external self-determination. This paper seeks to locate possible boundaries of the right of self-determination through a functional account of the right grounded in a symbiotic relationship with the emerging doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect. While not suggesting that the right should be confined to its role in the R2P framework, this paper, nonetheless, proposes that the right’s minimum guarantee may be consistent with the minimum guarantee of R2P itself: the responsibility lies with the state to ensure, at minimum, sufficient political, cultural, social and economic freedom to facilitate the creation of a state where all citizens are protected from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. Ultimately, the Responsibility to Protect doctrine and the right of self-determination outside of the colonial context have a symbiotic relationship: the invocation of self-determination provides the R2P doctrine with a broadly affirmed right in which to ground its rhetoric and work; and R2P provides the right of self-determination with a possible framework and context through which to circumscribe its uncertain boundaries and define the content of its minimum entitlement.
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 | 0.025 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".