Statsansvar i internationale militæroperationer – Hvornår er Danmark ansvarlig for partneres krænkelser af folkeretten?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Danske styrkers hyppige samarbejde med forskellige former for partnere i internationale militæroperationer indebærer en uomgængelig risiko for, at Danmark kan ifalde ansvar for bidrag til andres folkeretsbrud. Den folkeretlige regulering af staters ansvar for deres partneres handlinger består af et omfattende og til dels uklart og kontroversielt regelkompleks. Det har ofte afgørende betydning, om den pågældende samarbejdssituation alene er omfattet af folkerettens generelle regler om statsansvar, eller om regler inden for folkeretlige særdiscipliner, herunder humanitær folkeret og internationale menneskerettigheder, stiller skærpede krav til den bidragydende stat. Danmark skal sikre, at danske styrker til enhver tid er klædt på til at imødegå risikoen for at bidrage til militære partneres folkeretsbrud. Dette forudsætter bl.a. løbende udvikling og operationalisering af fyldestgørende procedurer for risikovurderinger forud for samarbejde med en partner.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.123 | 0.039 |
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".