MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146715131

The Domestic Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression after the International Criminal Court Review Conference: Possibilities and Alternatives

2013· article· en· W2146715131 on OpenAlexaff
Nidal Nabil Jurdi

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatuteComplementarity (molecular biology)JurisdictionRome Statute of the International Criminal CourtLawPolitical scienceSupreme courtAggressionCriminal courtCriminal lawDomestic violenceCriminologyStatute of limitationsInternational lawSociologyPsychologyPoison controlSuicide preventionSocial psychologyMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the International Criminal Court Review Conference in Kampala, the issue of complementarity and aggression was not given the proper attention it deserved. In principle, the application of art 17 has remained intact for all crimes of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (‘Rome Statute’) — including aggression — but it is unclear how complementarity will interplay with other principles of international law when it is applied to aggression. Despite this uncertainty, this article claims that if certain conditions are fulfilled there exist ‘solutions’ that will allow domestic courts to exercise jurisdiction over this ‘supreme crime’. It argues that because states have incorporated the crime of aggression — which in turn has incorporated the act of aggression — into the Rome Statute without amending the complementarity mechanism, they have not closed the door to allowing domestic courts to look into the crime under the complementarity mechanism, albeit under the jurisdictional limitations adopted in Kampala. Even the adopted understanding in Kampala on domestic prosecution, which may be viewed by some as a weakening factor for this article’s claims, should not be overestimated; as a non-ratified annex it cannot be given more weight than the Rome Statute’s pivotal art 17 or the amendments adopted. Finally, several uncontroversial and uncontested options for domestic prosecutions still remain. The first is when the beneficiary state decides to explicitly waive its right. The second is when national courts have primary responsibility under the complementarity mechanism to prosecute crimes of aggression committed by their own nationals. Furthermore, domestic courts will be able to prosecute non-nationals for the crime of aggression after the International Criminal Court or the United Nations Security Council has determined that an act of aggression has been committed. While there is no doubt that the issue of domestic prosecution of the crime of aggression remains contentious, the possibility of its domestic prosecution remains open — albeit requiring some creative interpretations of the amendments of the Rome Statute.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0190.037
Scholarly communication0.0310.017
Open science0.0050.013
Research integrity0.0320.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations20
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207