Comparative Legal Analysis of Foreign States’ Legislation on Liability for Genocide
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This article examines the diversity of approaches to the criminalization and penalization of the crime of genocide, based on a comparative analysis of the legislation of 90 states worldwide. It has been established that the majority of legislators have stipulated liability for the aforementioned crime directly within the criminal code. At the same time, the legislators of Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Philippines, Portugal, Rwanda, South Africa, Sweden, and Uruguay have prescribed liability for genocide in specific legislative acts. It has been determined that legislators have adopted varying approaches to the implementation of international legal norms concerning liability for the crime of genocide. While certain legislators have reproduced the relevant international legal norms contained in the 1948 Convention and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court verbatim or with minimal textual amendments that do not affect the substance, others have transformed the aforementioned norms of international law to a greater or lesser extent. It has been elucidated that in Argentina, Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, New Zealand, and Rwanda, the referral method was employed in the criminalization of genocide. It has been clarified that a number of legislators (specifically, Andorra, Austria, Belarus, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chad, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Honduras, Lesotho, Lithuania, Liechtenstein, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Uruguay) provide an expanded range of groups protected from genocide, in comparison to the 1948 Convention. It has been established that, alongside those enumerated in the relevant international legal acts, the legislators of Angola, Andorra, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Estonia, Ethiopia, Italy, Lithuania, Mongolia, Nicaragua, North Macedonia, Panama, Paraguay, Spain, Uruguay, and Vietnam have included other acts committed against members of a particular group of people within the objective element of genocide. The differences in the legislative formulation of the forms of genocide, as outlined in international legal acts, have been analyzed. Particular attention has been directed to the Italian experience in the endeavor to criminalize cultural genocide. The specificities of the criminalization by legislators of various states of conspiracy to commit genocide and direct and public incitement to commit genocide have been established. A significant diversity of existing approaches is noted, not only in the criminalization but also in the penalization of the crime of genocide. It is emphasized that the analyzed foreign experience may be useful in improving the domestic criminal law prohibition pertaining to liability for the specified crime. In particular, the identification by some legislators of other groups of people, not specified in international legal acts, against whom genocide is committed, as well as the expansion of the list of actions that constitute the objective element of this crime, deserve serious attention.
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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