Communitarian Norms and Regional Security: The GCC as a Security Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Arabian Peninsula, unique in geopolitical importance thanks to its oil fields and sea routes, is constituted from states that share cultural traits, tribal structures, and loyalties. These states have been connected by economic, foreign policy, and geostrategic concerns, thus forming an Arabian Gulf identity. Numerous common denominators among these countries have assisted them in forming their own coalition, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). The purported foreign-policy pivot of the United States towards Asia has led to concerns in many GCC countries about a defence breach within the region, which could be taken advantage of by the GCC's rivals. Given the substantial purchases of military weapons in the region over the past few years, what are the possibilities of building a functional security community within the GCC? This article analyzes whether the common Khaleeji identity is enough to unite the GCC countries and enable a form of communitarian system to function, whether efficiently or otherwise. It also examines the GCC's challenges and scenarios that could lay the groundwork for a possible GCC regional defence arrangement, with the support of its common identity and norms.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".