Genealogical analysis of the dispositive of humanitarianism/trusteeship: from colonial administration to peacebuilding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By using genealogy, this study analyzes the dispositive of humanitarianism/trusteeship, which has constituted the power relationship between trustees and target societies and fields of intervention of power in international society. This dispositive has been reproduced from the colonial period to the present. However, this study does not attempt a complete history of humanitarianism and trusteeship. Its aim is to follow the formation and reproduction of power relations in international society. In this study, ‘trusteeship’ refers to a relation of inequality and a field of intervention, rather than a specific or particular historical practice. Thus, the concept of trusteeship includes various practices such as colonial administration, development assistance, and transitional administration. Equally, the category of ‘humanitarianism’ also includes practices such as protection from anarchy, relief from oppression, and freedom from poverty, which are above and beyond the direct relief of suffering. Examining IR theories which employ genealogy, this study adopts sociological genealogy as a methodology. Previous studies on new trusteeship tend to presume that new trusteeship is rooted only in liberal internationalism. However, this study argues that it is underpinned not only by liberal internationalism but iii \n \nalso by humanitarian discourse. Furthermore, some existing works on humanitarian intervention and new trusteeship presume that there are two kinds of humanitarianism: ‘humanitarianism separate from politics’ and ‘humanitarianism abused by politics.’ The former means that politics is just a tool for humanitarian purposes; and the latter means that humanitarian discourse is a convenient cloak for political interests. This dichotomy leads to the distinction between ‘good trusteeship embodying humanitarianism’ and ‘bad trusteeship abusing humanitarianism.’ This study aims to show that this dichotomy is highly questionable and to indicate the co-constitutive nature of trusteeship and humanitarianism. The language of trusteeship harks back to the colonial period even while the humanitarianism of today tends to reject political and colonial content. While trusteeship requires strong moral justification, humanitarianism contributes to the constitution of trusteeship when it attempts to alleviate human suffering. Although humanitarianism has represented trusteeship as universal and impartial, trusteeship has tended to expand and defend the interests of particular communities in international society. This study indicates the inherent danger of trusteeship and humanitarianism.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".