MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1577914688

Security Council Targeted Sanctions, Due Process and the 1267 Ombudsperson

2010· article· en· W1577914688 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Grant L Willis

Bibliographic record

VenueGeorgetown journal of international law · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOmbudsman and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSanctionsObligationCharterPolitical scienceLawSecurity councilInternational lawPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.014
Scholarly communication0.0120.006
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0160.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeorgetown journal of international lawSame topicOmbudsman and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207