{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022727272727272728, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.754601226993865, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Remembering the “Responsibility to Protect” in Twenty-First Century Human Rights Rhetoric

Since at least the time of the Geneva Conventions, various domestic and international communities have sought methods to justify a host of private contractor interventions or the deployment of state military force in the name of humanitarian necessities. Labeling particular non-state or state actions as imminent terrorist threats, natural disasters, declarations of war, atrocities, or genocides has portentous symbolic and material consequences. For example, many rhetoricians are already familiar with how discursive resources have been marshalled for more than a decade in what many have called the “global war against terrorism” or various “overseas contingency operations.” Countless public and legal debates continue regarding the lexicons that Western coalitions should use to balance talk of state sovereignty with commentary on the need for “extra-territorial” interventions. Yet even those who agree that we need to worry about Al Qaeda, the Taliban, cyber-security threats, Islamic fundamentalist