MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2992788235

An Introduction to the International Criminal Court. (Book Reviews)

2003· article· en· W2992788235 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
W. McShane, Colonel Thomas

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe US Army War College Quarterly Parameters · 2003
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueInternational Law and Human Rights
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTreatyLawPolitical scienceRatificationJurisdictionInternational lawCriminal jurisdictionStatuteState (computer science)Politics
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

An Introduction to the International Criminal Court. By William A. Schabas. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. 2001. 406 pages. $90.00. International Criminal Court (ICC) is an important idea whose time has come after almost 80 years of false starts. concept of an international forum to try individuals accused of war or other international offenses dates to the end of World War I and the Treaty of Versailles. book of Ecclesiastes expressed the same idea even earlier: The oppressed were crying, and no one would help them. . . because their oppressors had power on their side. international agreement underlying the ICC, known as the Rome Statute (or treaty), was negotiated and signed Rome by 120 nations July 1998. President Clinton signed the treaty on behalf of the United States on 31 December 2000, but the controversy surrounding the treaty doomed prospects for ratification. On 6 May 2002, President Bush formally notified the United Nations of our intent to withdraw from the treaty. court commenced operations at Hague the Netherlands on 1 July 2002, three months after the 60th signatory state ratified the treaty. United States recently sought and obtained concessions from the United Nations and individual states exempting US forces involved international peacekeeping operations from the jurisdiction of the court. These events, and the United States' failure to join the 138 states that have signed the treaty and the 81 states that have ratified it and become parties as of this writing, makes this a timely and important subject. It has ramifications for the global war on terrorism and American national security policy. Author William A. Schabas, an international law professor at the Irish Centre for Human Rights of the University of Ireland, Galway, and an observer at Rome, provides a straightforward, generally helpful analysis of the Rome Statute and the ICC. Some members of the US government, Congress, and media critical of the ICC, including members of the military, have not read the Rome Statute, and their opposition is a matter of faith rather than educated opinion. A brief summary of Schabas's book may shed some needed light on this subject and encourage further study. Chapter One outlines the formation of the treaty. Drawing upon the experiences of the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals following World War II and modern tribunals convened for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the United Nations 1995 established a preparatory committee to draft language for a permanent criminal court. In July 1998, representatives of some 160 states and numerous nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) met Rome to negotiate an international agreement that would become the Rome Statute. remarkably short period of time which this transpired reflected the strong sense of the international community for a standing court. Heavily involved early discussions, US negotiators were soon outmaneuvered by a group of states known as the like minded, including US allies Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Norway, the Republic of Korea, and the United Kingdom. This group provided the nucleus of support for critical elements of the treaty, particular universal jurisdiction, the core crimes of genocide, war crimes, and against humanity, the lack of Security Council veto over prosecution, and prohibition of reservations. Article 120 required the treaty be accepted in toto, contrary to customary practice that states may sign treaties with reservations limiting application of specific provisions of the treaty against the reserving state. As the state most heavily involved international operations, the United States wanted a limitation on prosecutorial discretion to preclude politically motivated prosecutions of Americans. US negotiators advocated this position on behalf of the Department of Defense, but the like minded states rejected it and established a single standard applicable to all. …

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)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,870
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,001

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 Opus0,022
Tête enseignante GPT0,295
Écart entre enseignants0,273 · 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.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
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

Citations0
Publié2003
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe US Army War College Quarterly ParametersMême sujetInternational Law and Human RightsTravaux en français237 207