The International Court of Justice’s<i>Kosovo</i>Case: Assessing the Current State of International Legal Opinion on Remedial Secession
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary In light of the global prevalence of secessionist movements, some have proposed “remedial secession” as a last resort solution where a “people” is either denied internal self-determination or is faced with massive human rights violations by a repressive regime. While lack of state practice largely confined this concept to academic circles through the 1990s and much of the 2000s, remedial secession received renewed international legal attention in the proceedings concerning the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) 2008 advisory opinion in the caseAccordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo(Kosovocase).In light of support for remedial secession expressed in the submissions of eleven states, as well as its apparent endorsement in the separate opinions of two ICJ judges, advocates of remedial secession may plausibly argue that the soft law status of the concept has been strengthened and perhaps even that it is in the process of emerging as a regional customary norm for those states that supported it. However, the impact of theKosovocase on solidifying the legal status of remedial secession should not be overstated, as opponents of the concept may point to a number of contrary indicators that also emerged from the formal discourse surrounding the case.
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 | 0.023 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".