Defining human rights in the socio-cultural and political context of South Sudan: how to move towards the assertion of full human rights in line with international law?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
South Sudan faces a dire human rights situation, characterised by recurrent violations committed by government forces, armed opposition groups, militias and community-based armed cattle raiders. This study applies the ‘universality of human rights’ approach to the country to ask the following questions: How can we explain the appalling human rights situation in South Sudan? How can we move towards the assertion of full human rights on the basis of a more universalist approach to human rights in accordance with international law? To answer these questions, the study considers that South Sudan is not a ‘lawless’ country, but rather that the legacy of colonialism and the militarisation of the region during the years of civil war created a culture of violence and human rights violations that persists to this day. The study is structured in three parts: The first presents the situation of human rights violations in the socio-cultural and political context of South Sudan. The second part looks at the challenge of defining human rights in the context of competing standards for authority. The third part examines how the country can move towards asserting full human rights in accordance with 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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".