MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W238737674

Compounding the Countermajoritarian Difficulty Through "Plaintiff's Diplomacy": Can the International Criminal Court Provide a Solution?

2003· article· en· W238737674 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John Fowles

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawStatutePolitical scienceTreatyConstitutionPlaintiffState (computer science)Sociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Compounding the Countermajoritarian Difficulty 1131A. Background: Confronting a Disturbing Asymmetry in U.S. LawThe same "concerns" to which President Clinton alluded in 2000 had already led to vehement objections to the ICC in Senate hearings on July 23, 1998.Senator Rod Grams declared, "I hope that now the administration will actively oppose this Court to make sure that it shares the same fate as the League of Nations and collapses without U.S. support [,] for this court truly I believe is the monster and it is the monster that we need to slay." 9 Subsequently, despite Clinton's signature on the ICC Statute, the United States under the Bush Administration abstained from becoming a party to the treaty just months before the ICC Statute came into effect on July 1, 2002. 10 In fact, concerns over the ICC's jurisdictional reach, prosecutorial responsibilities, and the definitions of crimes in the ICC Statute convinced the Bush Administration to insist on "a 100 percent ironclad guarantee that no American servicemen will be investigated and prosecuted by the court."11 On July 13, 2002, after diplomatically tense weeks of U.S. threats to pull its support from U.N. peacekeeping missions around the world unless U.S. troops obtained immunity from prosecution in the ICC, the U.N. Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1422 granting the U.S. military immunity for a one-year period.12 The United States then began seeking bilateral agreements with individual governments to exempt U.S. military personnel from ICC prosecution.13 Additionally, "statements made by U.S. representatives reveal that 9. Is a U.N. International Criminal Court in the National Interest?: Hearing Before the Subcomm.on Int'l Operations of the S. Comm. on Foreign Relations, 105th Cong. 4 (1998) [hereinafter ICC Hearings (1998)] (statement of Sen. Rod Grams). Letter from John R. Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, to Kofi Annan, UN Secretary

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.020
Scholarly communication0.0190.023
Open science0.0050.009
Research integrity0.0340.026
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.004

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.273 · 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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicInternational Law and AviationFrench-language works237,207