MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Violence in Kenya: Any Role for the ICC in the Quest for Accountability?

2009· article· en· W2086346753 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mba Chidi Nmaju

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Legal Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpunityCrimes against humanityAccountabilityCommissionPolitical scienceGenocideTribunalOpposition (politics)LawKenyaJurisdictionGovernment (linguistics)Presidential systemSierra leonePublic administrationWar crimePoliticsInternational lawSociologySocioeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article examines the violence that broke out in Kenya after the 2007 presidential elections. After weeks of fighting and the establishment of a coalition government made up of the incumbent president and the leader of the opposition, relative calm returned to the country. However, the government has been slow to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Post Election Violence (Waki Commission). One key suggestion the Waki Commission made was to call upon the Kenyan government to establish an independent Special Tribunal made up of domestic and international jurists to prosecute those responsible for the crimes committed during the violence. At the time of writing, the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber II had been assigned the matter to determine whether the Office of the Prosecutor could initiate investigations. This article argues that the crimes committed in Kenya during the post election violence do not meet the ICC threshold on jurisdiction and gravity, and do not have the essential legal attributes of genocide and crimes against humanity. However, the manner in which the ICC handles this situation has the potential to influence the way future crimes are tried; thus the ICC must ensure that impunity does not prevail over accountability.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score0.891

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Journal of Legal StudiesSame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207