Bibliographic record
Abstract
Imade this remark to a colleague from the Canadian Department of National Defence in the margins of a seminar in 2015 in Montreal.It was a facetious remark intended to affirm my colleague and his excellent points, through a satirical device.I had not, at the time, fully explored the meaning behind the remark, but in retrospect I find that there is a lot of meaning and that it is a useful tool to organise my arguments in this paper.First, the remark is true because too much is sometimes expected of the law and legal advisers.Secondly, the reference to 'high priest' suggests a formal, stratified regime of pontification on the law and its related elements.Thirdly, I do belong to a secular military.Fourthly, it does raise a question: if the lawyer is not responsible for moral elements of operational decisions, who is? Fifthly, I suggest that we do not need to allocate responsibility to a particular person for the moral element.Sixthly, the remark is facetious because the concern does not actually warrant formal escalation -and, of course, I'll explain why I take that position.Finally, I'll suggest an antidote -notwithstanding that it involves a difficult 'pill to swallow'. II Law's PLace In armed confLIctMy paper is firmly situated in the growing discourse that has critiqued the law's socio-political impact in the context of armed conflict.The point is not that law is a negative force, nor that it seeks nefarious aims, but rather that it is used far too often to debate issues of legitimacy and even morality concerning armed conflict.The work of David Kennedy in particular has been at the forefront of this growing critique.Kennedy observes that the law of armed conflict ('LOAC') has become so expansive that it seeks to provide explanation and justification for much that is undertaken in armed conflict.This in turn results in the abdication of other avenues of social or moral inquiry.Hence, Kennedy observes that * LLB, BEc (UWA); LLM (Melb); LLM (McGill).Duncan Blake served as a permanent forces Legal
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".