MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2145171762

National Ownership and International Standards Independence and Impartiality of Hybrid Courts: The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia

2009· article· en· W2145171762 sur OpenAlexfundno aff
Hanna Bertelman

Notice bibliographique

RevueLund University Publications Student Papers (Lund University) · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueInternational Law and Human Rights
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesUNICEFEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaStyrelsen för Internationellt Utvecklingssamarbete
Mots-clésImpartialityLawAccountabilityPolitical sciencePopulationJudicial independenceHuman rightsIndependence (probability theory)Sociology
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The ICTY and the ICTR were established in the 1990s to determine individual accountability for mass atrocities. The tribunals have had a great impact on the development of international criminal law, yet their effects in the concerned societies have been disputed. As the courts are located outside the territory in which the crimes took place, and are composed of international lawyers and personnel, they have little interaction with the affected population. This weakness can be described as a lack of national 'ownership' in the proceedings. In the last decade a number of hybrid courts have been established, that to a varying extent are integrated in the national legal system, and that apply both national and international law. The ECCC, which is the focus of this thesis, is an example of such a court. There is yet no general procedural law applicable in international criminal courts, and procedures have developed from national legal systems, human rights instruments, and a number of non-binding instruments. While some rules may be directly applicable, others must be adapted to the international setting and the sui generis nature of hybrid courts. National ownership can be broken down to a number of components, including the participation by national judges and victims, and the acceptance that a court enjoys among the general population. The success of victim participation and outreach programmes will in many ways determine the legacy that the court will enjoy, at least at a national level. At the same time, national ownership should not be promoted at the cost of international standards. While the two concepts are far from contradictory, at times one may have to be prioritized over the other. A number of concerns have been raised with regard to independence and impartiality at the ECCC. Cambodian law falls short of the safeguards required to ensure an independent judiciary, and concerns have been raised regarding political influences at the Court. Since 2007 corruption allegations have been raised, an issue which the Court has failed to adequately address. The Court is dependent on voluntary contributions by states for its operation, something that can call into question the institutional independence of the ECCC. Funds to the Cambodian side have been frozen since 2008 due to the allegations of corruption. The fact that all Cambodian judges lived through the Khmer Rouge era, and are part of an establishment which for decades fought politically and militarily against its remaining leaders, can affect their objective impartiality. Finally, the decisions taken regarding jurisdiction and composition of an ad hoc tribunal can affect its appearance of independence throughout the proceedings. In conclusion, there are a number of ways in which the ECCC does not live up to international standards of independence and impartiality. These flaws can partly be explained by the lack of responsibility and authority that has followed with the dual structure of the Court.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,980
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,603

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,020
Tête enseignante GPT0,297
Écart entre enseignants0,276 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueLund University Publications Student Papers (Lund University)Même sujetInternational Law and Human RightsTravaux en français237 207