Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article deals with the OSCE Document "Freedom of Religion or Belief and Security. Policy Guidance"(2019) from the perspective of the status of freedom of conscience and belief, as well as the political and legal realities that prevailes in the Western countries (USA, Canada, EU member states), in Russian Federation, and in Ukraine. Author proves that attempts to balance issues of religious freedom and national security in Western countries after the 9/11 led to the establishment of a new security regime, primarily in the United States. Some essential changes designed for an effective response to current and future threats were introduced in national legal system by lawmakers in Germany, United Kingdom, Spain, France, and Italy. With all this going on, many policymakers and commentators called governments to use all necessary means to not allow terrorists and religious extremists to take advantage from what could be regarded as a vulnerability of Western democracies, namely their openness, liberal legislative regime, democratic procedures, sensitivity to human rights and human dignity. The author emphasizes that, despite some shortcomings that followed the shaping of the new security’s regime, it contains obvious components that are quite in the line with the 2019 OCSE Document’s fundamentals.
 Absolutely opposite, author argues, is the approach to the religious freedom and national security dichotomy in Russian Federation. The restrictions of the religious freedom in this country motivated by the interests of national security, are such brutal that destroy the main pillars of the international law in this realm and put Russia on a par with the most flagrant violators of religious freedoms all over the world.
 Finally, inspired by the Ukrainian model, author is proving that almost thirty years long experience in forming a model of state-church relations adequate to the spirit and letter of internationally recognized principals in the field of the freedom of conscience and belief can be productive even if the country faces enormous external and internal challenges and the balance between religious freedom and national security can be achieved even for a country at war.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".