La judiciarisation internationale des criminels de guerre : la solution aux violations graves du droit international humanitaire?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les Nations Unies ont doté peu à peu la communauté internationale de traités, de conventions ou de principes engageant la responsabilité pénale internationale des individus pour permettre l'amélioration du respect des droits de l'homme les plus fondamentaux, afin d'éviter à tous les atrocités, la torture ou l'arbitraire. Malgré ces mesures de mise en œuvre très diversifiées, des violations graves continuent chaque jour à se dérouler un peu partout dans le monde. La communauté internationale ne réagit que lorsqu'elles atteignent un caractère massif, systématique et insupportable. L'échec de ces mécanismes de mise en œuvre a été le point de départ de la mise sur pied d'une justice pénale internationale. La judiciarisation internationale des criminels de guerre par le biais des tribunaux pénaux internationaux ad hoc ou de la cour pénale internationale permanente saura-t-elle pallier les carences et les faiblesses des systèmes pénaux nationaux quant à la répression des criminels de guerre ?
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".