Normes impératives en droit international (Peremptory Norms in International Law)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Dans ce texte, l’auteur effectue une recension de l’œuvre d’Alexander Orakhelashvili intitulee Peremptory Norms in International Law. Selon l’auteur, le travail d’Orakhelashvili accomplit son objectif d’offrir une etude approfondie des normes imperatives, jusqu’alors absente de la doctrine du droit international. L’auteur note que bien que le traitement historique et philosophique des normes imperatives ne soit pas complet, la revue des sources contemporaines par Orakhelashvili est, pour sa part, tout a fait remarquable. Orakhelashvili examine non seulement la jurisprudence occidentale, mais fournit egalement un apercu des traites internationaux, des rapports de la Commission du droit international, des resolutions du Conseil de securite et de l’Assemblee generale des Nations unies et de la litterature secondaire. Somme toute, en etant a la fois theorique et pratique, l’œuvre d’Orakhelashvili est une contribution majeure a la doctrine de droit international. English Abstract In this text, the author reviews Alexander Orakhelashvili’s Peremptory Norms in International Law. According to the author, Orakhelashvili’s work fulfills its objective to provide a comprehensive study of peremptory norms, hitherto lacking in international legal doctrine. The author notes that while the historical and philosophical review of peremptory norms is not exhaustive, the review of contemporary sources by Orakhelashvili is truly remarkable. Not only does he examine the western jurisprudence, he also provides an overview of international treaties, reports by the International Law Commission, United Nations Security Council resolutions and secondary literature. In short, by being both highly theoretical and practical, Orakhelashvili’s work is a major contribution to international legal doctrine.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".