MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2974402031 · doi:10.4337/9780857932815.00020

What is the future of non-refoulement in international refugee law?

2019· book-chapter· en· W2974402031 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James C. Simeon

Bibliographic record

VenueEdward Elgar Publishing eBooks · 2019
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeeLawObligationSupreme courtPolitical scienceJurisprudenceRefugee lawInternational lawTreatyCustomary international lawPublic international law

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cornerstone of the modern international refugee protection system is the principle of non-refoulement. There are now very few states in the world that are not bound by any universal treaty obligation that contains the non-refoulement principle and, with respect to opinio juris, it is considered by a number of the leading authorities of public international law as a universal obligation by states whose interests are directly affected. This chapter demonstrates how the jurisprudence of the ECtHR is the most progressive in the protection of asylum seekers with respect to the principle of non-refoulement, in comparison to the judgements of the Supreme Court of the US, the Supreme Court of Canada, and the High Court of Australia. In fact, the interdiction policies and practices of the US and Australia have been upheld by their highest courts, and even the Suresh judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada allows for refugees to be deported on grounds of national security risks, even in the face of torture back home. However, given current circumstances and persistent global trends, it is reasonable to conclude that the future of nonrefoulement is far from salutary.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEdward Elgar Publishing eBooksSame topicInternational Law and AviationFrench-language works237,207