Extraterritorial Sanctions, Transnational Corporate Activity, and State’s Duty to Protect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unilateral (extraterritorial) economic sanctions, that are often imposed on states and non-state actors by another state, are incompatible with international human rights law. Major powers use their dominant positions in the global economy to attempt influence the political behaviour of states by imposing economic measures against them. Nevertheless, the principal Business and Human Rights instruments as well as other International Law instruments do not address extraterritorial sanctions and their negative impacts on the operation of foreign business entities and the consequent human rights violations. These sanctions threaten a wide range of rights and freedoms enshrined in international human rights law and cause irreparable collateral damage. This paper is a critical inquiry into the relationship between extraterritorial sanctions, their negative impacts on the operation of the business entities in sanctioned state, and sender state’s extraterritorial human rights obligations. In order to answer this question, the paper will explore state’s duty to protect in more details in the context of imposition of extraterritorial sanctions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".