How to End the Territorial Conflicts in Georgia: An International Law Based Mediation Proposal for Abkhazia and South Ossetia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, I present a proposal for an international law-based formula to mediate territorial conflicts, and apply it to the separatist cases in Georgia. While the situation there is notably more stable than in some other post-Soviet conflicts (i.e., Russia and Ukraine, Armenia and Azerbaijan), it is important to note that these ‘frozen conflicts’ can become quickly unfrozen and heat up in violent aggression. Thus, while a ceasefire between the conflicting parties has held for 14 years, the conflicts in Georgia need a definitive political solution that is simultaneously based on a legally solid compromise. In this article, I use my formula to propose such a compromise to the Georgian territorial questions that fit into the contemporary international legal framework concerning territory. Naturally, any realistic solution will require concessions on every stakeholder. In short, the formula offers for Georgia the return of its territorial integrity, for Abkhazia internal self-determination in the form of a meaningful territorial autonomy, for South Ossetia a recognition of a set of strictly limited cultural and language rights, and for Russia a position as a guarantor state. All these proposals are based on international law.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".