Global Magnitsky Acts: A Legal or Rather a Geopolitical Tool?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2016, the US adopted the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, which enables the imposition of extraterritorial sanctions for human rights violations around the world. This tool has quickly become widespread and was copied by many Western jurisdictions, including the EU, the UK, Canada, Australia and other countries. The analysis of application practice shows that the global Magnitsky Acts are susceptible from the international law perspective. They serve as a geopolitical tool in the hands of the applying States and cannot pretend to be universal, objective and impartial in the context of human rights protection; they are unilateral in nature and do not reflect the practice and opinio juris of the world majority. Despite the declared values associated with the international protection of human rights, the effect of these instruments on cooperation among states in this field and on international law in general is more negative than positive. The dissemination of this legal transplant may turn out to be far from being as harmless as it may seem at first sight, as it contributes to the politicisation and transformation of human rights from a sphere of cooperation into a sphere of rivalry of states, which in the end may seriously harm the existing system of international protection of human rights.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".