The rule of law, the local turn, and re-thinking accountability in security sector reform processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite calls for the development of ‘second-generation’ approaches, security sector reform (SSR) processes in conflict-affected contexts remain dominated by state-centric strategies with weak records of improving security governance or human security. SSR’s current impasse, we suggest, is best captured in the tension between an ongoing commitment to the rule of law and a growing recognition that sustainable peace must be grounded in local traditions and practices. Our argument is that re-thinking the place of the rule of law within SSR as a long-term aspiration, rather than a short-term fix, requires reconsidering accountability in security governance. In contexts where the rule of law is weakly institutionalised, and where myriad forms of security provision co-exist, how (and by whom) can security actors be held accountable? We seek to identify varieties of extra-legal accountability arrangements that exist in conflict-affected contexts, and ways in which external actors may support – without coopting – such arrangements.
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 | 0.045 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.077 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".