The Relevance of International Law Standards to Religious Leaders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The chapter, thus, makes a case for informed, reflexive engagement between legal scholars and practitioners and religious leaders as a step change in enhancing the relevance of international law. Structurally, the chapter is divided in seven sections. Section 13.2. exam- ines how doctrinal, socio-legal methods and constructivist theory can shape the analytical inquiry into international law standards of relevance to religious ac- tors. Section 13.3. delves into empirical, doctrinal and sociological approaches to defining religious leadership, so as to understand the ‘actorhoods’ they em- body, the variety of affiliations they can have with religion, belief or spirituality, and the special legitimacy they claim. Section 13.4. explores the international legal standards applicable to religious leaders and the consequences of the various actorhoods they embody on their enjoyment of rights and obligations. A specific focus will be the legal regime applicable to religious personnel under international humanitarian law (‘IHL’) and the conditions and implications of the loss of this protective status. The accountability avenues available to chal- lenge abuse by religious leaders and increase their positive influence on third parties are examined in Section 13.5. Section 13.6. discusses the interaction between religious leaders, international human rights law (‘IHRL’) and IHL, beyond compliance with or abuse of these standards. The conclusion ties the argu- mentative threads of the chapter together and makes a plea for greater engage- ment between international law scholars and practitioners and religious actors as a norm compliance-generation strategy.
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 | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| 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".