A Review of Hijacked Justice: Dealing with the Past in the Balkans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book explores how nations deal with legacies of genocide and ethnic conflict through state noncompliance with international standards based on the phenomenon of "transitional justice," defined by Julena Subotic as the process of collective healing through seeking out the truth.The author argues that this noble cause is often hijacked by the so-called "institutions of transitional justice" which use various forms of coercion (economic, symbolic, and bureaucratic) to force a truncated view of justice onto nations.According to Subotic, the use of coercion often has the unintended and paradoxical effect of leading justice-seeking countries to respond to external impositions by resisting justice and truth-seeking in various ways.To prove such claims, Subotic examines the cases of three former members of communist Yugoslavia-namely, the republic of Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina.Subotic fails to take up the case of the former Yugoslav republic of Slovenia, which achieved independence following a brief two-week long war with Belgrade, and is currently the only former Yugoslav republic to have been admitted into the European Union (EU).The EU is a symbolic promised land, and acts as a pressure point to exact legal and other reforms in former Yugoslav republics.She also omits the cases of Macedonia and Kosovo.War crimes institutions, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and various other truth commissions have polarized the populations and parties of the three nations in question.The book sympathizes with the victims due to the author's favourable view of transitional justice functioning as a means towards national healing.However, the author exposes the fallibility of current transitional justice norms and their disturbing yet diverse outcomes as evident in Bosnia, Serbia, and Croatia.Some of these unexpected, negative consequences include the assassination of Serbian reformist
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".