International Law Making in Times of Competing Ideologies or Clashing Civilizations: Peaceful Coexistence and Soviet-Western Legal Dialogue in the Cold War Era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary “Peaceful Coexistence,” a basic premise for minimum world public order during the Cold War, has re-emerged as a possible paradigm-model for world order in the present era of clashing or colliding civilizations. When the idea of codifying the general principles of peaceful coexistence was first advanced in the still-continuing Cold War, it was rejected by specialist legal bodies like the United Nations' International Law Commission and also the Institut de droit international as too “political” and thus incapable of being reduced to a scientific-legal foundation. The resulting intellectual-legal gap was promptly filled, however, by the non-governmental International Law Association (ILA), which established its own expert committee. Long-range fruits of this ILA initiative — apart from the all-important opening of a direct East-West legal dialogue — were the celebrated UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 of October 1970 and the acceptance of the pragmatic, empirical, problem-solving, step-by-step approach to resolving East-West conflicts in concrete cases — the ultimate road to détente on a deliberately nonideological case-by-case basis. The Canadian Branch of the ILA, with the support of the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs' Legal Division, was a leader in the ILA's decision to take up that project and participated fully until its successful completion.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".