Bibliographic record
Abstract
And borders of Canaanites went ... until Gaza. --Genesis 10:19 GAZA HAS historically been on border of Middle East conflict, a Palestinian hinterland and a footnote in larger dispute between Israel and its neighbors. The publication in September 2009 of report of Justice Richard Goldstone's fact-finding mission on Gaza conflict changed all that for international lawyers. This essay examines legal discourse about armed confrontation between Israel and Hamas as it moved from periphery to core of debate in United Nations, using opportunity to theorize about nature of international judging. It concludes that, although there are important legal issues raised by Gaza conflict--including status of conflict as a domestic or international one, legal assessment of Hamas's attacks on Israeli civilians, and proportionality of Israel's military response--international law has gone beyond point of usefulness. In a peculiar parallel to ancient world, law has matured to where it is primary discipline for international governance, yet its content has decayed to where it provides few objective constraints on self-serving positions taken by it s judges. A Time of Judging In November 2009, Farukh Amil, deputy permanent representative of Pakistan, speaking on behalf of Organization of Islamic Conference, introduced General Assembly Resolution 64/10 endorsing Goldstone Report. In his speech, Pakistani delegate condemned Israeli forces for war crimes and stressed the urgent need to ensure accountability. (1) His colleague A. K. Abdul Momen, representative of Bangladesh, concurred, pronouncing his country's verdict that Israel had committed systematic violations against Palestinian people. (2) In result, General Assembly affirmed conclusion reached previous month by UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Resolution S-12/1, which Kuwaiti representative to council, Dharar Abdul-Razzak Razzooqi, summarized by declaring Israel guilty of being occupying power, which instead of defending civilians, is destroying Geneva Convention. (3) The Kuwaiti assessment reflects premise of previous Human Rights Council missions that Gaza is still an occupied territory by virtue of Israel's control of all entry and exit points; overlooking, of course, doorway from Egypt through which Justice Goldstone himself entered and left at beginning and end of his mission. (4) This premise is a crucial element in Goldstone analysis and judgments that flow from it because it forms basis of view that Israel owes a higher duty of care to its domestic Gaza population than it would to a foreign nation. On other hand, it goes against Palestinian legal positioning, which has elsewhere claimed that Palestinian Authority is in full control of its territory and should therefore enjoy judicial immunities of an already established sovereign state. (5) Given Hamas's domestic governance of Gaza Strip, conclusion that Israel's belligerent occupation continues also seems at odds with classical formulation of that status; that is, where occupier exercises governmental authority to exclusion of established government (of occupied). (6) Little wonder, then, that Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon demurred when asked for his institution's best judgment about whether Gaza is still under occupation, stating that he is not in a position to say on these legal matters. (7) The sui generis nature of Gaza's legal status found no place for discussion in polarized UN considerations of Goldstone Report. Israel rested its case on its own Supreme Court ruling that Gaza conflict is a strictly international one, (8) arguing that country's inherent right of self-defense includes dictating how airspace, seacoast, and armed forces of its neighbor can be used. …
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.010 |
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".