New Models of Sovereignty for Contested States: Some Empirical Evidence of Non-Westphalian Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter seeks to widen that debate to other crucial arenas of international politics and examines the areas where traditional assumptions about sovereignty are clearly inadequate to explain contemporary developments. It also examines the emergence through the 1980s and 1990s of new models of sovereignty from the constitutional nationalist parties in Quebec and Scotland. The chapter looks at the proposals which have been made by the international community to resolve the conflict in Kosovo at the pre-bombing conferences in Rambouillet, France and more recently as incorporated into the, United Nations imposed, Constitutional Framework of 2001. It is difficult to envisage judgments on minority rights being very effective remedies for minority ethno-nationalist communities who feel excluded or dominated within their existing states. While overtaken by events and subsequent bombing of Yugoslavia, the Rambouillet accord is worth analyzing as it represented a serious proposal, which fundamentally violated the normal rules and definitions of sovereignty as articulated in the Westphalian model.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".