The Logic of International Response to Anti-Violence and Sexual Integrity Agenda in Violent Conflict: Case of MINUSCA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A survivor-centered approach is at the heart of the international community’s humanitarian action today. In armed conflicts various forms of sexual violence are seen not only as accompanying violence, but also as a tool of pressure and warfare of the contesting parties, and important measures to prevent and counteract such acts have been included into the mandates of the UN peacekeeping missions. This research aims to identify the logic of international community’s action to counter conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV) by strengthening peacekeeping initiatives, and complement ongoing research on the protection of women in armed conflict and situations of sexual violence. This goal entails an examination of all elements of the existing system: legal framework, the role of states, and the activities of the UN. The authors conducted a content analysis of the UN Security Council resolutions on the topic to trace conceptual terminological changes. At the same time, to identify the main contradictions in the rhetoric of states and, consequently, the motives of their actions, a discourse cluster analysis was used based on the statements of delegations in the UN Security Council. The resulting clusters display three unique positions of the national states that are mostly explained by different understandings of the term itself, the categories of victims of such violence, and the relevant tools for countering it. Emphasis could be placed on including sexual violence on the sanctions list, gender education in military training, increasing the number of women in peacekeeping and peacebuilding missions, or preventive measures. The authors identified the most active states pushing the anti-sexual violence agenda; they include Germany, the UK, the US, Canada, and France. The article also examines the practical implementation of UN peacekeeping mandates in terms of including measures to counteract sexual violence. The research confirms that peacekeeping missions are now more actively engaged in the international response to CRSV.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".