On international law and Gaza: critical reflections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As Israel’s assault on Gaza continues into its tenth month, the language of legality has become the dominant frame of popular and political discourse. Public interest in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and its proceedings is at a level perhaps never seen before; so too in the International Criminal Court (ICC), its Prosecutor at once urged to act and condemned for inaction, his recent request to judges for the issuing of arrest warrants both celebrated and damned. International law has emerged as the global vernacular of both condemnation and legitimation; few commentators today speak of Gaza or Palestine without invoking the language of il/legality. What are we to make of this groundswell of interest in and resort to international law? What is the significance of the current series of ICJ proceedings and popular engagements with them? How should we think about the clamorous championing of The Hague and its institutions as the harbingers of justice? The editors of the London Review of International Law invited our advisory editors and others in the academic community of critical scholars to reflect on these questions.
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 | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.033 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".