Surrendering to the Big Picture: Historical and Legal Perspectives on Accountability in the Democratic Republic of Congo Following the Defeat of the March 23 Movement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It remains to be seen whether the past few months will mark a genuine turning point in the conflict in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), as the rebel faction March 23 Movement (M23) announced the end of its 20-month insurgency against the government on 5 November 2013. News of the rebel group’s surrender following its political and military defeat signals an important moment of hope and renewed prospects of peace and stability in a region prone to protracted armed conflict. However, long-term stability in the country and in the region will require a multi-faceted process consisting of comprehensive accountability for human rights violations that have been committed by all parties to the conflict. In this article, I will first lay out the historical context of the fighting and the root causes of conflict present long before M23’s entrance onto the scene as a splintered rebel faction so as to understand M23’s place within the country’s history of protracted violence. Next, I will explain the violations of international humanitarian and human rights law committed by all possible parties, including rebel and government groups, as well as individual criminal responsibility and corporate liability. Lastly, I will chart the pathways of criminal and social accountability at various levels of international and domestic justice systems to see how the DRC may continue to build long-term local stability in the eastern parts of the country by addressing the question of accountability for international crimes. This brief analysis aims to provide a broader understanding of a complex conflict beyond the defeat and disarmament of M23, albeit a key group in a region of contentious cross-border conflict.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".