International Administration of Territories and the Dilemma of Accountability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two decades post the Cold-War; the World has witnessed a systematic revival of a practice long thought to be extinct- territory administration via an international body to act as a government for running the state/territory. The most prominent examples were the United Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET).Various criticisms were directed to the International Administrations of Territories; the most prominent was mandating this Administration Authority complete power in running the Legislative, Executive and Judiciary authorities where its decisions are not being subject to monitoring or accountability. Yet, such decisions were mostly in violation of the International law which undermined the core principles of democratic governments, the rule of law and human rights as being the corner stones of International peace and security.This study aims at analyzing the legitimacy of forming international administrations as well as scrutinizing the legal restrictions and commitments thereof. The ramifications of any violations of such restrictions and commitments (The International Human Right Law and The International Humanitarian Law) should be holding these administrations and its members accountable internationally.
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 | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".