“ABSOLUTE FRIENDS”: UNITED STATES ESPIONAGE AGAINST GERMANY AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 2014, the USA stands accused of engaging in espionage against Germany, a NATO partner and supposedly close ally. Many, though by no means all of these allegations became known because of the Snowden revelations. In Germany, this has led to a public backlash and has caused many to criticize the German government’s feeble reaction. Against this backdrop, this article considers whether the alleged US conduct may have even gone beyond abusing Germany’s trust by actually violating public international law. After summarizing the main accusations, the state of the debate on the legality of espionage in international law will be analysed. This will allow the conclusion that there is so far no convincing answer to the question of whether espionage violates public international law or not. This is due to the imprecise, contradictory and changing definitions of the term “espionage”, but also, more importantly, to the fact that there is no necessity for international law to deal with “espionage”. Rather, customary international law already provides clear guidance as to the lawfulness or unlawfulness of most, if not all, activities commonly associated with espionage. A detailed legal analysis of the alleged US spying activities will confirm this proposition and reveal that US conduct, if proven, did indeed violate public international law in each case. The USA not being able to rely on any legal justification for its actions, Germany would consequently be well within its rights to adopt countermeasures.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".