Operationalizing Human Security: What Role for the Responsibility to Protect?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of human security, whose origin could be traced back to the 1994 Human Development Report published by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) represents an ambitious attempt to broaden the meaning of security and, perhaps most importantly, challenge the state-centric notion of national security. A resolution (A/RES/66/290) adopted by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in September 2012 has, for the first time in UN history, formally recognized human security as an approach to ‘assist Member States in identifying and addressing widespread and cross-cutting challenges to the survival, livelihood and dignity of their people’. While the discussion of the human security concept continued within the UN, the advocacy of key UN member states for human security had been shifted to the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Considering the fact that the potential role of the R2P to promote and operationalize human security has not been adequately explored, this article seeks to understand the positive potential role that R2P can play in operationalizing human security by exploring the relationship between the two. Acknowledging the efforts of Lloyd Axworthy, the former Canadian foreign minister, in situating ‘human security in the R2P era’, this article argues that R2P plays an important role in clarifying the scope and sharpening the focus of human security. This, therefore, can help strengthen the implementation of the human security concept.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it