Bibliographic record
Abstract
Even as the international community commemorates the 50th anniversary of the deployment of the first UN peacekeeping mission, the world is facing a crisis of protection. Inter-state warfare may be becoming a thing of the past, but massive displacement, human insecurity, and civilian casualties are on the rise. The new normative principle and operative doctrine which is attracting increasing attention, enthusiasm, and, in some quarters, alarm, is the notion of a “responsibility to protect” (R2P)—that the international community has a duty to protect civilians from massive human rights violations where their governments are unable or willing to provide security. R2P is the present-day response to a problem every bit as big, and urgent, as peacekeeping had been 50 years ago. The ongoing violence in Afghanistan, the DRC, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Uganda, and elsewhere serves as a poignant reminder that our current international protection regime is still too weak and too limited to provide security for all. The UN has often failed to act quickly and effectively, while ad hoc coalition and regional initiatives (which have emerged as a possible alternative to UN-led—and, even, UN-authorized—operations) have caused serious concerns about their capacity, accountability, and legitimacy to intervene. The global war on terrorism has further complicated efforts to protect human security, with many nations less willing to send armed forces into a sovereign country. The question this report addresses is how the international community can now turn this normative principle into an operative doctrine that will bring security to vulnerable civilians around the world. The responsibility to protect, to be sure, is first and foremost a responsibility to prevent conflicts from breaking out. It is also a responsibility to rebuild, reconcile, and reconstruct a post-conflict environment. This triple notion of R2P calls for a comprehensive approach to human security and sustainable development. But the focus of this report is on finding ways to protect civilians from large-scale violence when it is already too late to prevent yet too soon to rebuild. How can we ensure an effective and timely response to a grave crisis? Part I provides a holistic overview of the scope and significance of the developing norm of protection. It surveys the key doctrinal developments, transnational advocacy, codification, and international practice that have together turned “sovereignty on its head” since the early 1990s and contributed to the gradual evolution of R2P and, in particular, those factors that have enabled its re-emergence since 2001. Part II considers the strategies to take the norm of protection forward. It proposes the creation of a national R2P agenda and the construction of an international protection regime through the joint efforts of a transnational R2P coalition. Part III presents a series of pragmatic guidelines on operationalizing the norm of protection in the field, with a specific focus on Darfur.
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 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.068 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.069 | 0.087 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.009 |
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".