Funds, Rights and Terror: Her Majesty's Treasury v. Mohammed Jabar Ahmed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the wake of 2001, the freezing of property emerged as a dominant method for countering terrorism. Borrowing from concepts applied to global money laundering and the drugs trade, terrorist finance came under scrutiny and became a locus of preventive measures. A troublesome aspect of this collection of legal devices has been the “listing” or “designation” of individuals and entities allegedly connected to terrorism. Flowing from United Nations Security Council resolutions the consequence of listing is the denial of access to, and use of, any financial interests with little, or no, access to any due process considerations. Late in January 2010, in Her Majesty’s Treasury v. Mohammed Jabar Ahmed and Others, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom upheld the appeals of individuals who had been “listed” and thereby denied access to property pursuant to two anti-terrorist property regimes. The decision deals with the interplay of United Nations Security Council resolutions and action taken by the UK executive to give those resolutions domestic effect. By shifting methods of statutory interpretation, the decision affirms procedural rights while striving not to condemn proclamations of the Security Council.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".