Issues of Sexual and Gender-Based Violence at the ECCC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter examines how the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia have—and have not—addressed sexual and gender-based crimes under the Khmer Rouge regime. It begins with a brief exploration of what was known about sexual and gender-based violence under the Khmer Rouge when the ECCC began operation, and how negation of this knowledge seriously impacted the court’s initial investigations. It then turns to an examination of how forced marriage came to be addressed as a crime against humanity in Case 002. This section evaluates the ECCC’s analysis of forced marriage as an inhumane act, which represents a positive addition to the understanding of forced marriage in international criminal law. However, it also highlights the current gaps that still need to be addressed, including the definition and classification of forced marriage. The chapter subsequently examines how the ECCC has considered rape as a crime against humanity. This story is not as positive. The court has narrowly prescribed the acts of rape that can be considered in Case 002/02 to rapes within forced marriages, likely affecting Case 004’s allegations of rape outside of forced marriages. It has also determined that rape was not considered a specific crime against humanity in 1975. The chapter ends with an inquiry into the ECCC’s likely legacy on sexual and gender-based crimes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".