Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the close of 2024, the Journal of Conflict & Security Law (JCSL) will have been published by Oxford University Press (OUP) for 25 years. In its first incarnation in 1996, the JCSL appeared as the Journal of Armed Conflict Law and was published by Nottingham University Press; however, in its second and continuing incarnation after 1999, it was incorporated by OUP. This twenty-fifth anniversary year seems a suitable opportunity to take stock of how the journal—and the world around it—has evolved; and this seems especially appropriate as we, the co-editors-in-chief (and founders), will take our leave at the end of December. Twenty-five years into the 21st century is surely an opportune moment to reflect on how conflict and security law has developed during this period of great turmoil in international relations, and to consider how the JCSL has served as a sounding board, discussion forum and guide. Conflict and Security Law is of course a broad area of international law that touches on many different but interconnected fields of law, from collective security law to the law of armed conflict/humanitarian law (IHL/LOAC) and arms control law, as well as the law as it relates to developments in weapons technology and new methods of warfare like cyber. The ambitious breadth of this area is reflected in the original description of what the JCSL is about: The journal covers the whole spectrum of international law relating to armed conflict from the pre-conflict stage when the issues included those of arms control, disarmament and conflict prevention, through to the outbreak of armed conflict and discussions of the legality of resort to force (jus ad bellum) to the coverage of the conduct of military operations and the protection of non-combatants by international humanitarian law (jus in bello). Treatment is also given to the conflict resolution stage where the legal issues concern peace agreements, post-conflict rebuilding (jus post bellum), territory, compensation and disarmament. Collective security mechanisms such as peacekeeping are potentially applicable throughout.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".