Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whilst the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) requires States to take effective measures for a cessation of the nuclear arms race, and the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) calls for a near-term prohibition of nuclear armament, these goals are far from being fulfilled. Nuclear deterrence remains a reality in current State practice, NPT implementation is under stress, and all nuclear-armed States are unwilling to join the TPNW. This chapter undertakes a legal review of published nuclear doctrines in an effort to explore global and regional aspects of the role of nuclear weapons today: are current activities towards nuclear weapons modernization and further improvements of missiles and missile defence compatible with obligations under international law? Will modernization increase or decrease the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence? Are there gaps relating to negative security assurances in pertinent regions and what are the prospects for closing them? Are the existing international monitoring and control mechanisms sufficient and what may be done for their improvement? What other means could support confidence building? The author concludes that certain specific activities of nuclear weapons modernization and the development of missiles technology remain problematic under international legal principles and rules. A special focus is laid on low-yield nuclear warheads that would hardly be limited to an extreme case of self-defence in which the very survival of a State would be at stake, as well as on high-yield nuclear warheads with a devastation capacity that may exceed any standard of necessity and proportionality.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
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".