Le droit international et l’idéologie droits-de-l’hommiste au fondement de l’hégémonie occidentale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
S’inspirant des ecrits du philosophe italien Antonio Gramsci et du courant neo gramscien de relations internationales, cet article examine les interventions militaires entreprises au cours de l’annee 2011 par les Etats occidentaux (et avalisees par le Conseil de securite de l’Organisation des Nations unies) en Libye et en Cote d’Ivoire. Il etaye la proposition selon laquelle l’une des fonctions fondamentales du droit international et de l’ideologie « droits-de-l’hommiste » est de legitimer ce type d’interventions militaires entreprises par les Etats – et principalement celles des Etats occidentaux – afin de defendre ce que ceux-ci considerent comme etant leurs interets. Cette legitimation, qui se percoit par la constitution du «consentement spontane » des differents acteurs du systeme international a l’endroit de l’ordre etabli, est un moment constitutif de l’ «hegemonie » occidentale et a comme effet de reduire la contestation face aux actes de coercition qui sont commis a travers le monde contre les groupes subalternes afin de defendre les interets des groupes dominants de la societe internationale.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".