Peut-on justifier l’intervention de l’OTAN au Kosovo sur le plan humanitaire? Analyse de la politique occidentale et ses conséquences en Macédoine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary It is generally accepted that NATO’s military intervention against Yugoslavia did not conform to recognized rules of legal positivism. For most western observers, the justification relies on its legitimacy rather than its legality. This moral argument is based on the belief that the humanitarian plight of the Albanian populations in Kosovo was exceptionally grave. While the situation on the ground prior to NATO’s bombing campaign warranted western involvement, the article shows that it was not exceptional in relation to other armed conflicts around the world.Western diplomacy in this Balkan crisis reflects an element of selectivity concerning respect for public international law that will have negative consequences on the future of international relations. The result in the immediate region is a change in the balance of power accompanied by general destabilization. Despite the large international military and civilian presence, Kosovo has been transformed into an almost homogeneous Albanian territory and neighbouring Macedonia is threatened by an extension of the Albanian insurrection. This international intervention confirms the relevance of established legal norms on the use of force because they allow better chances for action guided by reason rather than one-sided media pressure.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".