Fact-Finding without Facts: The Uncertain Evidentiary Foundations of International Criminal Convictions, Nancy A. Combs. * Victims' Rights and Advocacy at the International Criminal Court, T. Markus Funk. * Rethinking International Criminal Law: Restorative Justice and the Rights of Victims in the International Criminal Court, Godfrey M. Musila.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eighteen years after the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and 65 years after the post-World War II military tribunals, two fundamental questions continue to hound international and hybrid criminal tribunals: What kind of justice should they aspire to, and what can they plausibly deliver? The ongoing debate on these questions presents three very different alternatives for the future of international criminal justice. We can abandon international criminal trials as doing more harm than good, we can limit them to the core function of determining the guilt or innocence of a small number of ‘most responsible’ persons or we can reform them so that they can more successfully pursue a broad range of goals, such as postconflict reconciliation or victim empowerment. The three books under review provide valuable contributions to this debate. In Victims' Rights and Advocacy at the International Criminal Court and Rethinking International Criminal Law, respectively, Markus Funk and Godfrey Musila offer clear-eyed but optimistic descriptions of how the International Criminal Court (ICC) can pursue ‘victim-centered’ justice by developing processes of legal participation and reparations. Both see the ICC as capable of restorative justice and not simply retribution. While Funk emphasizes the practical possibilities and challenges of victim participation, Musila puts the ICC in the broader context of domestic and international legal developments in victims' rights.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it