MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7020228849

Legitimizing resistance? International refugee law and the protection of individuals resisting oppression

2014· dissertation· en· W7020228849 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2014
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsRefugeeOppressionRefugee lawPersecutionConventionInternational lawTortureHuman rights
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction …………………………………………………………………. 1 I. Defining Resistance …………………………………………. 2 II.Overview of the Thesis and Methodology …………………... 5 III.Situating This Work ………………………………………… 14 Chapter One -Individual Agency and International Law ………………….. 20 I. Introduction: Resistance as Prologue ……………………….. 20 II.Individuals and the Advancement of International Law ……. 25 III.Resistance and the Advancement of International Law …….. 31 a.Armed Resistance and Authoritarian Regimes ……………… 41 b.Desertion and Selective Conscientious Objection ………..….45 c.Challenging Rebel Groups ………………………………….. 65 IV.Conclusion .…………………………………………………. 67 Chapter Two -Legitimizing Resistance …………………………………….72 I. Introduction …………………………………………………. 72 II.The Legitimacy of Armed Resistance ……………………….73 III.The Legitimacy of Selective Conscientious Objection ……... 85 IV.Resisting Corruption and Economic Oppression …………… 95 V. Conclusion ………………………………………………….103 Chapter Three -Reimagining Refugees ……………………………………107 I. Introduction …………………………………………………107 II.Refugees as Victims ……………………………………….. 109 III.Broadening the Construct of Victimhood …………………..123 a. Pure Victimhood ………………………………………….... 124 b.Attractiveness of the Pure Victim ………………………….. 127 c.Rejecting Victimhood …………………………………….... 130 d.Sharing A Single Corporeal Space -Agency and Victimhood134 IV.The Refugee as a Victimized Resister and Resistive Victim 141 V. Conclusion …………………………………………………. 148 Chapter Four -Personae Non Gratae: Targeting The Use of Force As A Basis For Excluding Resisters…………………………….. 150 I. Introduction ……………………………………………………. 150 II.Legislative Exclusions -Carving Violence Out of Resistance …154 III.In Defence of the Political Crimes Doctrine ……………………172 a. Origins of the Political Crimes Doctrine ……………………….173b.Political Crimes in Extradition Law ………………………….. 175 c.Political Crimes under Article 1F(b) ………………………….180 IV.Successful Applications of the Political Crimes Doctrine …….. 190 a.The Factual Circumstances ……………………………………191 b.Judicial Contextualizing …………………………………….. 193 V. Conclusion .…………………………………………………….202 Chapter Five -Non-State Political Actors and Re-Defining the Notion of the "Political" in the Context of the 1951 Refugee Convention 204 I. Introduction ……………………………………………………. 204 II.Assessing the State of the "Political" ………………………….. 206 a. Political Opinions ……………………………………………… 206 b.Political Crimes ………………………………………………... 214 III.Power as the Central Feature of the "Political" ……………….. 220 IV.Criminal Organizations as Oppressive Political Actors ……….. 229 V. Conclusion …………………………………………………….. 235 Chapter Six -Seen In Its True Light: Desertion as a Pure Political Crime ...237 I. Introduction …………………………………………………… 237 II.Military Desertion and State Protection ……………………….238 III.Desertion -A Pure Political Crime?………………………….. 246 IV.Paragraph 171 Desertions ……………………………………... 251 V. Conclusion …………………………………………………….. 252 Chapter Seven -Mediating Between Heroism and Criminality: Article 1F(a) and the Exclusion of Imperfect Military Resisters …….. 253 I. Introduction ……………………………………………………253 II.The Historical Context of the Drafting of Article 1F(a) ……….257III.Advancing the Humanitarian Objectives of International Law...263 IV.Utilitarian Justification ……………………………………….. 265 V. Consequences of Exclusion and Its Proximity to Criminal Punishment……………………………………………………..266 VI.The Role of Duress in the Commission of a Crime ……………272 VII.Conclusion ……………………………………………………..279 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………280 I. Limiting Armed Resistance ……………………………………281 II.Desertion and Selective Conscientious Objection ……………..283 III.Resistance to Corruption and Economic Oppression …………..285 IV.Expanding the Boundaries of the "Political"………………….. 286 V.Concluding Thoughts ………………………………………….

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.038
Scholarly communication0.0140.008
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicInternational Law and Human Rights→French-language works237,207→