Bibliographic record
Abstract
International law, being a system based on the formal equality and sovereignty of states, has arisen largely out of the exchange of reciprocal rights and duties between states. Reciprocity refers to the interdependence of obligations assumed by participants within the schemes created by a legal system. In other words, obligations are reciprocal if their creation, execution and termination depend, in a general manner, on the existence of connected obligations on others. Reciprocity may be fundamental but it is also variable: distinctions must be made according to the type of norms and the kind of relationship they embody. A regional trade treaty and the customary precautionary principle in environmental law, for example, will both imply elements of reciprocity, albeit distinct ones. Human rights and humanitarian law have been said largely to escape from reciprocity because both essentially aim to protect the interests of individuals rather than states. It would follow that, in the frameworks of human rights and humanitarian law, reciprocity occupies a much smaller place than in the rest of international law. This could provide a rationale for the development of institutions particular to these two areas of law and the unsuitability of some principles of general international law. The ensuing discussion examines various elements of human rights and humanitarian law to determine whether they indicate a relevance for reciprocity markedly more limited than in general international law, and whether similar patterns appear in this respect in both areas of law.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.307 | 0.132 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".