INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE IN THE ORGANIZATION AND ACTIVITIES OF MILITARY FORMATIONS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNCTIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article provides a comparative legal analysis of international experience in the organization and functioning of military formations with law enforcement functions in European countries and the United States. The study covers two main approaches: models where military formations have permanent law enforcement functions (the gendarmerie type, characteristic of France and Italy), and models where the functions of military formations are clearly separated from other security and defense structures and are allowed only in conditions of emergency or martial law (USA, Canada). Special attention is paid to the legal foundations and institutional mechanisms of democratic control over the armed forces, par- ticularly exemplified by the United States, as well as to the system of subordination of gendarmeries in European countries.It is shown that in most countries, reserve or guard formations with dual subordination operate actively, being involved in maintaining public order, crisis response, and participation in peacekeeping operations.The domestic experience is considered in the context of gradual adaptation to international standards. At the same time, it is emphasized that the lack of clear legal delimitation of powers between the National Guard of Ukraine, the Armed Forces, and the police complicates the implementation of effective cooperation. Based on the analyzed international experience, the author justifies the need for further legislative modernization of the legal status of the National Guard of Ukraine.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".