Bibliographic record
Abstract
English Abstract: After 215 years, the United States Supreme Court has had the opportunity, following its decision in Filartiga v Pena-Irala to shed light on the Alien Tort Statute, also known as the Alien Tort Claims Act, defining the scope of its applicability to transnational human rights litigation. The author describes the United States Supreme Court decision in Sosa v Alvarez-Machain as a cautious decision about a unique statute. While reminding federal courts that customary norms must meet the highest standards of specificity to be actionable under the ATS, a majority of the Supreme Court endorsed the Filartiga jurisprudence. According to the author, however, many questions remain, among others, the actionability of violations of international law by non-State actors. French Abstract: Apres 215 ans, la Cour Supreme des Etats-Unis a saisi l’occasion, a la suite de sa decision dans Filartiga v Pena-Irala, de faire la lumiere sur l’Alien Tort Statute, aussi connu comme l’Alien Tort Claims Act, en definissant sa portee aux litiges transnationaux des droits humains. L'auteur decrit la decision de la Cour supreme des Etats-Unis dans Sosa v Alvarez-Machain comme etant une decision prudente reliee a une loi bien particuliere. Tout en rappelant aux tribunaux federaux que les normes coutumieres doivent satisfaire aux plus hauts standards de specificite pour pouvoir etre mises en application en vertu de l’ATS, une majorite de la Cour supreme a neanmoins souscrit a la decision Filartiga. Selon l’auteur, cependant, de nombreuses questions subsistent, entre autres, sur la possibilite de recours en matiere des violations du droit international par des acteurs non etatiques.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".