Economic Community of West African States, Regional security and the Implementation of Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Rhetoric or Reality?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The last 25 years have seen Economic Community of West African States, through the use of various norms, structures and protocols, make the promotion of security and the implementation of humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect (R2P) important aspects of the political landscape in the sub-region. The article argues that despite the great strides made by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in the implementation of R2P, there are not only challenges (inadequate funds available for peace and security missions, conflicting interests and lack of agreement, poor co-ordination, inadequate human and logistics capacity) with its application in the sub-region, but also concerns about its future. Thus, to promote security and realise the goals of implementing humanitarian intervention and R2P in the ECOWAS sub-region, not only should the actors involved have the requisite capacity but also political will and commitment, citizen awareness, and co-operation among ECOWAS member-states and with the international community should remain crucial to the process.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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".