Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book chapter is a companion to the article, “The Mysterious Mysteriousness of Complementarity”. It covers similar ground in examining a curious interpretive disconnect in the complementarity discourse. Whereas the companion article goes into greater depth exploring the policy implications obscured in the current debate, the book chapter focuses more on the disconnect, its prevalence, its enduring persistence and its possible causes. This chapter provides additional demonstrations that Article 17 quite explicitly requires national proceedings if a case is to be rendered inadmissible under complementarity. It then carefully examines the treatment in the literature, showing that despite the express two-step test in Article 17, there is a surprisingly widely-shared and firmly-held belief that Article 17 creates a one-step test fixated entirely on the famous ‘unwilling or unable’ criteria. The belief is so persistent that many commentators insist that admissibility due to state inaction is a ‘gloss’ and an ‘invented’ prong, and have expressed alarm and concern about the International Criminal Court’s perceived departure from the Rome Statute. Significantly, the critiques are not presenting an alternative ‘interpretation’ of Article 17. Rather, they sincerely adhere to the one-step simplification of Article 17, and thus fail to engage with 55 words of text that expressly require proceedings, and indeed even deny that there is any such text. The disconnect is fascinating, because a socially constructed belief about the text is so powerful that it has obscured access to the actual text. It is remarkable and unusual that application of the 55 words is widely regarded as a creative 'unwritten third prong'. While many useful debates on interpretation may await, they must start with a shared recognition of the terms of the text itself, and an empirically accurate distinction between what is gloss and what is text, what is written versus unwritten. Once we engage with the two-step test expressly stated in the text, many interesting questions about the role of the ICC arise. The book chapter ventures some thoughts about possible factors that may have contributed to this interpretive disconnect, including terminological imprecision in terms such as ‘waiver’ and even ‘uncontested admissibility’.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".