In the Name of International Peace and Security: Reflections on the United Nations Security Council's Legislative Action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El presente artículo busca ilustrar cómo el Consejo de Seguridad de Naciones Unidas ha asumido cierta capacidad hegemónica para actuar como legislador, teniendo como premisa la ausencia de tal figura en la estructura y dinámica del Derecho Internacional. Así, basando sus acciones en el mandato de man- tenimiento de la paz y la seguridad internacional de la Carta de Naciones Unidas, el Consejo ha adoptado medidas de ese tipo bajo la lucha contra el terrorismo –por medio de las Resoluciones 1373 (2001) y 1540 (2004)–. Los efectos de tales acciones son analizados con dos raseros: legalidad vis-à-vis la Carta de Naciones Unidas y otras normas internacionales relevantes; y legitimidad, al confrontarlos con asuntos de accountability bajo la perspectiva de los que han sido denominados Rule of Law (Política Pública Internacional). Asumiendo que la acción del órgano de Naciones Unidas debe tener límites, se sugieren algunas propuestas y recomendaciones con el fin de mostrar la forma por la cual la Comunidad Internacional está enfocando su atención hacia la protección de principios y/o valores, como la autodeterminación, la democracia y la humanidad.
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 | 0.029 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; 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".