The Issues of Palestine and Algeria on the Delay of NATO’s Formation, 1948–1949: A Study on British International Negotiations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) is a military pact founded on 4 April 1949 in Washington D.C. Initially, it was comprised of 12 members committed to containing Soviet encroachment during the Cold War. Since its formation, NATO has expanded to include 32 members. The original members included seven founding countries, namely, Britain, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, the United States (U.S.), and Canada, and five invited countries, which were Italy, Norway, Portugal, Iceland, and Denmark. The drafting of this Atlantic military pact involved over a year of negotiations, from March 1948 to March 1949. Previous studies indicate that the process was lengthy primarily due to the issue of Italian membership, which caused delays and rescheduling of the signing ceremony from 1 February 1949 to the first week of April 1949. In addition to the Italian membership issue, this study argues that Palestine and Algeria, though peripheral to the NATO negotiations, contributed to the delay in NATO’s formation. By analysing British Foreign Office Papers (FO 371) and the Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS), this study reveals the disagreement between Britain and the U.S. over these ‘stray-stone’ countries during the NATO negotiation period. This study is significant because it highlights how seemingly unrelated geopolitical situations can substantially impact major international developments. It demonstrates how the resulting delay was resolved, offering a valuable case study of the unpredictable nature of international negotiations from the perspective of Britain.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".