MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2309415226 · doi:10.14288/1.0058260

Nabbing the devil : practical considerations in the use of armed force in the apprehension and arrest of persons indicted for war crimes

2009· article· en· W2309415226 on OpenAlexaff
Gordon Thomson

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApprehensionCriminologyPolitical scienceForensic engineeringLawEngineeringSociologyPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis considers the challenges faced by international criminal tribunals in gaining physical jurisdiction over those persons indicted for the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The thesis covers the need for justice for victims of such crimes, the history of the laws of war, war crimes and their prosecution, the need for an interdiction instrument, the legal basis for acting with force to arrest indictees, the use of military force to effect such arrests, and some of the various political and practical issues that arise in such use of force. I sought out first hand quotes and stories contained in various media sources, books and court transcripts to lend a voice to the victims. Substantiating the requirement for justice, I researched the written works and oral texts of academics, politicians, jurists, and senior military commanders, who have experienced firsthand the difficulties in preventing atrocities and prosecuting accused. To concisely discuss the history of the laws of war, I studied various academic works on the conduct of war including the writings of various history, religious and legal academics, as well as several primary source documents, including religious texts. In considering current international tribunals, I relied on treaty and customary international law documents, United Nations' documentation, and the current tribunals' statutes. The case law on extraterritorial detention of accused was found in trial and appellate court decisions from the United States, United Kingdom, South Africa, Israel and the ICTY. The thesis concludes that current international tribunals lack necessary mechanisms for enforcing indictments and thus ensuring that accused are brought before the courts' jurisdiction. In light of this inadequacy, a practical mechanism is needed to effect the interdiction and arrest of indictees for current and future international criminal tribunals. In conclusion, the use of military force to secure the detention and delivery of accused before the jurisdiction of issuing courts can be justified and should be utilized when other options have failed to effect with celerity, the accused's arrest.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0200.028
Scholarly communication0.0140.010
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicInternational Law and Human Rights→French-language works237,207→