Legal Nihilism as a Methodology of the U.S. Strategic Foreign Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study identifies and analyzes five pillars of legal nihilism in the U.S. strategic policy: philosophy, philosophy of law, economy, international relations, military strategy. Each pillar is specified. The first pillar is the philosophy of pragmatism and its quin-tessential concept of truth. The second one is repre-sented by the ‘new’ (alternative) philosophy of law based on the methodology of double standards. The third pillar reflects the U.S. strat-egy towards Russia, European countries, Canada, Venezuela, Mexico, and China. The fourth one shows the role of the USA in building a new world order after 1991, as exemplified by Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and Venezuela. The fifth pillar draws attention to the analysis of the United States’ breach of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and the Paris Convention of 1993. It focuses on NATO’s strategy towards Russia as well. In the authors’ opinion, international law de facto ceased to exist after the collapse of the Soviet Union. This was facilitated by the fact that the USA adopted the idea of its exclusivity and superiority over the rest of the world. It is a guideline for the U.S. government in the international arena today. In the current situation, Russia manages to act on the basis of international law by pursuing a peaceful and good neighbor policy.
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 | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".