Holding the Line on Complementarity in Libya: The Case for Tolerating Flawed Domestic Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The debate on whether violations of due process should be factored into the International Criminal Court’s evaluation of the admissibility of a case has recently been rekindled as a result of the indictment against Saif Gaddafi. This article seizes the opportunity to give the issue a fresh look. It argues that, in addition to the well-known textual arguments that this is not what complementarity is about, there is a strong and principled policy case that the ICC is not, and should not behave as, a human rights court. This case is based on an appreciation of the sovereign and transitional justice needs of state and society, an understanding of the functional division of labour between international criminal and human rights courts, and an application of the margin of appreciation surrounding the notion of a fair trial. Nonetheless, the article also acknowledges that there may be cases where violations of due process reach such a level that a trial cannot be described as a trial at all and reveal, in fact, an unwillingness to truly prosecute someone. However, such a determination is best left until after the conclusion of such proceedings, lest domestic judicial systems’ auto-corrective capacity be preempted.
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 | 0.126 | 0.210 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.030 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".