Letter to the Journal Unilateral Economic Sanctions Adopted to React to An Erga Omnes Obligation: Basis for Legality and Legitimacy Analysis?— A Partial Response to Alexandra Hofer’s Article
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Alexandra Hofer1 approaches the phenomenon of unilateral coercive measures from both the positivist and sociological angles. The positivist approach seeks to determine the existence of a norm prohibiting unilateral economic sanctions. The author concludes that the conditions are not met to attest that such a customary norm has emerged. The sociological angle rather determines why developed and developing countries hold diverging views on the lawfulness of unilateral economic sanctions regimes. The author believes that there are fundamental differences in the values they convey, which necessarily follow from their own identities. 2. Hofer’s interpretation is convincing. It has the merit of highlighting the different views of States on the lawfulness and legitimacy of unilateral economic sanctions. However, this analysis is not exhaustive. The author confines herself to exploring one particular aspect of a multifaceted subject. Patrick C.R. Terry (Unilateral Economic Sanctions and Their Extraterritorial Impact: One Foreign Policy For All?, 18 Chinese JIL (2019)) provides an important contribution by analyzing the extraterritorial scope of unilateral economic measures. The purpose of this article is to add another dimension, that of erga omnes obligations per se (Part II), which is interesting both from the point of view of Hofer’s positivist (Part III) and sociological (Part IV) analysis.
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 | 0.004 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.038 | 0.037 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.008 |
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".