How Should the United Nations Security Council Respond to Changing Balance of Power?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Together with the United Nations’ achievements comes constant criticism. The Security Council, as one of the core organs of the UN, has been a center of contention. The lack of practical responses to the Ukraine crisis since 2014 invokes another round of skepticism about the Council’s functionality and demand for reform. This paper does not consider the current dilemma exceptional. In contrast, this is merely another example that illustrates the Council’s increasing incapability when encountering the changing balance of power. Therefore, this paper claims the Council needs a robust reform to re-adapt to the grand trend. The first part briefly introduces the Council’s history to illustrate some possible fundamental issues in the Council. The second part analyzes the Council’s contemporary dilemmas when encountering crises involving great powers, such as Ukraine. Finally, the paper evaluates the existing plans for reform and proposes a new direction for consideration. Even though the Council has been suffering from weakness recently, it is unlikely that the world can completely abandon it soon before finding a more appropriate replacement. Therefore, this paper’s work is an initiating framework for future reform. But more research and discussion are necessary for a more elaborate scheme for practice.
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 | 0.017 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".