The North and South Divide in the Practice and Application of International Law: A Humanitarian and Human Right Law Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The North and South divide in the practice and application of international laws have been previously perceived to be evident in international environmental law where the Global developed North countries on the one hand advocate for a collective action to protect the environment while the Global developing Southern countries, on the other hand, argue for social and economic justice in practice. However, in recent times the North and South divide has permeated other aspects of international law such as International Human right and International Humanitarian law (IHL), hence the essence of this article. Thus, this article contributes to the existing literature by providing evidence to the existence of the North and South divide in the application of IHL and human right law.The article is divided into four main parts. The first part gives an introduction to the North and South divide in the application of international law. The second part reviews the literature on the existence of North and South divide in the application of international environmental laws. The third part gives a new dimension to the North and South divide in the application of international humanitarian and human right laws with the Syrian Crisis, Malaysian Airline flight MH17 and the 2007 draft resolution on the peace and security of Myanmar as the case studies. The last part concludes by giving an overview of how this phenomenon threatens world peace and consequently offers some recommendations.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.080 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".