Victims' Participation in the Jurisprudence of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon: One Step Forward or Adding Insult to Injury?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Victims' participation in international proceedings has increasingly gained paramount attention in recent years. This growing attention comes from two perspectives: First, its novelty in international proceedings due to historical and legal factors that played role in the development of international justice. Second, it stems also from the growing interest in transitional justice values in post conflict situations. The victims' participation system of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) rests on this evolutionary process, and its jurisprudence seems to be contributing to this incremental process. In Statutory terms, the STL victim participation system is built on the progressive development of international courts in that regard. Nevertheless, in practice, the victim participation system before the STL remains facing considerable challenges to achieve what was envisaged. Through commenting on the relevant STL case law, the discussion infra will shed light on some of these challenges as well as the contributions.
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 | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".