An Alternative to the Use of Force in International Law and Arab-Islamic Sulh for the Yemen Armed Conflict
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores Arab-Islamic sulh (reconciliation) which is known to be rooted in religious (sectarian) and cultural dynamics, as well as tribal practices of the Arab societies. For this purpose, this article highlights the limitations of the conflict resolution approaches now in use as contextually unsuitable. It further draws attention to the continuing vitality of Arab-Islamic rituals of reconciliation sulh and identifies ways that mediators (US, UK UAE, and others) might benefit from an appraisal of such rituals. To counteract tribal experiences of disempowerment and temper the power-political undertones of the conflicts, mediators would consciously integrate principles and symbolic practices inherent in indigenous Middle Eastern reconciliation methodologies of sulh, alongside musalaha (settlement). Sulh exemplifies key Arab-Islamic cultural values that should be looked at figuratively and literally for insight into how to approach conflict resolution in the Saudi/Yemen armed conflicts. Therefore, as an alternative to the use of force, the sulh would be provisioned to leverage its capability to accommodate political interests that underpin the conflicts as well, with a view to effective resolution.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".