Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter lays the theoretical groundwork for the argument. In the first section, I outline the legal regime governing armed conflict. The second section provides an initial definition of reciprocity and reviews two literatures explaining its importance to compliance with international legal regimes such as IHL. In section three, I outline what I am calling the “humanization of humanitarian law” thesis. This is the view that states are and can be expected to implement IHL obligations even if their adversaries do not. In section four, I present a more nuanced view of reciprocity. I demonstrate, via H. L. A. Hart’s theory of law as the union of primary and secondary rules, how states have maintained reciprocal strategies for dealing with IHL non-compliance through secondary rules. I then explain how the domestic, multi-actor setting of state decision making allows policy makers to use these secondary rules to respond to IHL non-compliance. In the last section, I examine logic of appropriateness theories found in the international relations and international law literatures that could serve as a basis for the humanization of humanitarian law thesis.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".