Human Dignity as the Foundation of Peremptory Norms in International Law: Theoretical Considerations and Practical Implications
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The concept of human dignity receives considerable scholarly attention in international law. More often, however, such studies primarily focus on the genesis, definition, and functions of human dignity across various domains of international law, particularly within the ambit of international human rights law. This research seeks to inquire into a less-explored connection between human dignity and jus cogens . Such an attempt is made to elucidate the foundational character of human dignity for peremptory norms through the examination of travaux préparatoires of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, relevant treaties, as well as international and domestic jurisprudence. The overarching aim of this study is twofold: firstly, to enrich the discourse on human dignity by examining it as a general legal principle underpinning jus cogens , while illuminating its operational role within the international legal order; secondly, to provide further insights into the legal category of jus cogens by delineating the rationale for its existence and the foundations that support it.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it