Security Council Targeted Sanctions, Due Process and the 1267 Ombudsperson
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since its inception the Security Council’s 1267 sanctions regime has come under fire from UN member states, listed individuals and entities, domestic and international courts and tribunals, human rights NGO’s and even other organs of the UN, that all claim the 1267 sanctions regime does not secure targeted individuals’ procedural due process rights, particularly the right to an effective remedy. For instance, in June 2009 a Canadian Federal Court Judge noted that the 1267 sanctions regime creates a situation for the listed individual that is “not unlike that of Josef K. in Kafka’s The Trial, who awakens one morning, and for reasons never revealed to him or the reader, is arrested and prosecuted for an unspecified crime”. Now some courts and governments of UN member states have decided that they will not comply with UNSC sanctions regime, which was adopted under Chapter VII, because it does not comply with procedural due process rights of targeted individuals. Such actions threaten to undermine the Security Council’s ability to secure international peace and security through its sanctions power. Thus, this Article raises the question of whether or not, given the Security Council’s exceptional status in international law, there are any legal bases for a Security Council obligation to ensure that rights of procedural due process are made available to individuals directly targeted with sanctions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. After an in depth discussion of this question, it is contended that the Security Council does have a legal obligation to render the listing and delisting procedures of the 1267 sanctions regime consistent with fundamental norms of procedural due process and furthermore. Finally, the functions, powers, and independence of 1267 Ombudsperson, which was created by a December 2009 Security Council resolution, is analyzed to determine whether or not it’s establishment has rectified the 1267 sanctions regime deficiencies. * J.D., certificate in International Law, Loyola University New Orleans College of Law; August 2010 Public International Law [specialization in Peace, Justice & Development] Advanced LL.M. candidate, Universiteit Leiden Law School, Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies in The Hague.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 it