MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393312938 · doi:10.32782/bses.85-28

COUNTERING THE FINANCING OF TERRORISM: LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS

2024· article· en· W4393312938 on OpenAlex
Tetiana Babkova, Oleksandra Vasylchyshyn

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBlack Sea Economic Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Sanctions and International Relations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceTerrorismDamagesAppealLawCommitContext (archaeology)SanctionsState (computer science)Territorial integrityOrder (exchange)DemocracySovereigntyBusinessPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article analyzes the legal situation regarding the expediency of an early decision to recognize countries that commit armed aggression as terrorist countries. The author outlines the positive aspects and issues that should be worked out in the domestic judicial practice regarding the appeal of persons to judicial institutions with civil and commercial claims against the Russian Federation for compensation for material and moral damages. The article analyzes the current ways and proposals to increase the responsibility of the Russian Federation for the invasion of Ukraine and the large-scale armed aggression of the Russian Federation against democratic Ukraine in order to protect its territorial integrity and national sovereignty. As a result, the authors emphasize that in order to stop the armed aggression of the Russian Federation, the EU Member States need to develop a legal framework for defining states as sponsors of terrorism and states using the means of terrorism, which will entail a number of significant restrictive measures against these countries and will have profound restrictive consequences for the EU's relations with these countries. In this work, the authors outline a number of issues related to the resolution of the judicial immunity of the Russian Federation in the context of the risks of further enforcement of such court decisions. The authors argue that the existing system of regulation of state immunity is not homogeneous in the world, and it is not designed for the situations taking place in Ukraine in connection with the invasion of the Russian Federation, and this raises a number of fundamental questions regarding the application of the concept of immunity to the latter. In addition, to address the issue of regulating relations with countries that show aggression, or rather with countries that act as a terrorist country or a country that finances terrorism, the author cites the experience of the developed algorithms of the United States and Canada as an example. The paper also focuses on the need to develop a procedure for the transfer of frozen Russian assets to Ukraine, since Ukraine needs the seized Russian assets today, primarily for the purchase of necessary weapons to destroy the manifestations of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation, to support Ukrainian forces on the ground, and subsequently to finance large-scale reconstruction of Ukraine. In general, the article presents proposals for the use of economic and legal levers of influence to stop the financial and economic sources of sponsoring military aggression against Ukraine.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.835
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it