AUT DEDERE AUT JUDICARE: CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITIONS ON EXTRADITION AND THE STATUTE OF ROME
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many States, the ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court raises the issue of the statute’s compatibility with certain dispositions of the national constitution. The potential issues of constitutional incompatibility are generally within one of the following categories: prohibitions on extradition, constitutional immunities from criminal prosecution, prohibitions on life imprisonment and concerns as to due process. The scope of this paper is limited to the first of these issues. The ICC will not prosecute individuals in absentia and will rely heavily on State cooperation to gain physical custody of suspects. In the author’s view, this reality renders the removal of impediments to prosecution all the more essential. The prohibition on extradition sits at the extreme end of a spectrum of provisions relative to mobility rights afforded to citizens within a great number of national constitutions. These dispositions vary in intensity. While some simply assert the citizens’ right to move about the national territory and to enter or leave it freely, others aim explicitly at shielding citizens from prosecution in external jurisdictions. After examining the respective ways in which States have addressed potential impediments to the surrender of individuals to the ICC, the author makes a case for constitutional amendment in order to ensure full compliance.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".