Armless Giants: Cooperation, State Responsibility and Suggestions for the ICC Review Conference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract International criminal courts and tribunals regularly face difficulties in obtaining cooperation from States, a stumbling block that hinders the process of bringing criminals to justice and trying them before a court of law. In doing so, States can be held accountable under the rules of state responsibility. This possibility was raised in key decisions and scholarly texts on the issue. This paper seeks to expand the discussion on the matter and analyze the responsibility of States for their failure to cooperate with international courts. Additionally, this paper suggests amendments to the ICC Rome Statute to strengthen the judicial assistance regime, considering that this court is designed to become the permanent court dealing with war crimes and crimes against humanity and that a review of the Statute is to take place in May or June 2010.
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 | 0.073 | 0.130 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| 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".