The United Nations and Support to Nepal's Peace Process: The Role of the UN Mission in Nepal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nepal's peace process has been exceptional in the extent to which it was a truly national achievement and not one mediated by any international actor. The United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) too has been unusual among recent UN peace operations, which increasingly have had wide-ranging mandates, in the limited focus of its support, and among UN missions with a military function, in the lightness of its military component. This chapter explains how this mandate and mission configuration – negotiated between the expectations of the parties and the capacities of the UN – came about. It describes the work of UNMIN in monitoring the commitments of the peace agreements regarding the armies and their weapons and in assisting the country on its troubled path toward the election of a Constituent Assembly. It explains how the breakdown of cooperation among the parties after the election success of the Maoists delayed decisions about the future of the combatants and the nature of a federal constitution for the new republic. It concludes by considering the flaws in Nepal's peace process and the strengths and weaknesses of an unusual UN mission in this context, particularly the tensions UNMIN faced between a limited mandate and high expectations, as well as its inability to determine its exit strategy when it depended on decisions that it was largely excluded from assisting. The End of the War The decision of the political leaders who shaped the peace process to request a significant UN role grew out of a longer period of mostly low-profile political engagement followed by a shorter period of high-profile human rights monitoring.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".