Depoliticisation as a Diplomatic Defensive Strategy: Analysis of the International Conflicts Waged in the ICAO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research is dedicated to the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and the politicised debates held on its forum. The purpose of the research was to investigate political debates on the ICAO forum and to analyse the attempts to terminate them through references to their political character or the technical character of ICAO. The main research question concerns the arguments used by the delegates/representatives engaged in political debates held on the ICAO forum. The researchers argued that the participants in these debates, mostly diplomats representing member states, have been employing depoliticisation techniques to terminate inconvenient debates, claiming that the ICAO is a technical organisation and political issues should not be debated there. The study covers several diplomatic standoffs at the ICAO forum: debates over ICAO membership/statehood in Spain, Taiwan, Cyprus and South Africa; various instances of the Arab-Israeli conflict; shootdowns of the Korean aircraft by the USSR and the Iranian aircraft by the US; and aviation aspects of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The study specifically covered individual statements of state representatives and debates on the forum of the ICAO Council and Assembly. The research has been performed through qualitative content analysis of the ICAO archival documents acquired both online and during research visit to the ICAO headquarters in Montreal. It was observed that state representatives have been employing depoliticisation in order to defend their countries on the forum of the ICAO from the attacks associated with international conflicts. Depoliticisation as a diplomatic tactic, however, in most cases proved unsuccessful.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".