II. Legality Of Use Of Force (Serbia And Montenegro v Belgium) (Serbia And Montenegro v Canada) (Serbia And Montenegro v France) (Serbia And Montenegro v Germany) (Serbia And Montenegro v Italy) (Serbia And Montenegro v Netherlands) (Serbia And Montenegro v Portugal) (Serbia And Montenegro v United Kingdom): Preliminary Objections. Judgment Of 15 December 2004<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a surprising-and disquieting-judgment which raises serious questions about the role of the Court. The Legality of Use of Force cases began in 1999 when the Federal Republic ofYugoslavia (FRY)2 first brought an action against ten NATOStates for their use of force in Kosovo.3 In December 2004 the Court decided unanimously that it had no jurisdiction to decide the cases. However, this unanimity masked a fundamental disagreement between the judges: it is apparent from the Joint Declaration of Judges Ranjeva, Guillaume, Higgins, Kooijmans, Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal and Elaraby that the judges were strongly divided, by eight to seven, on the reasoning which led them to agree that there was no jurisdiction.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".