Kirsten J. Fisher, Moral Accountability and International Criminal Law: Holding Agents of Atrocity Accountable to the World, Oxford/New York, Routledge, 2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le developpement technologique des armements mis au service des desseins belliqueux des acteurs a fait du XX e siecle l’un des plus meurtriers. Les violences massives et systematiques perpetrees, causant des milliers de victimes dans un cadre spatio-temporel limite, ont consequemment suscite une indignation et une prise de conscience collective sans pareil, donnant lieu a une institutionnalisation inedite de la paix. La communaute humaine se reconnut alors l’obligation morale et legale de trouver des solutions perennes a ces violences d’envergures car, en plus de menacer l’organisation collective des societes humaines, certains crimes, par leur gravite et leur ampleur, portaient prejudice a la conscience de l’humanite dans son ensemble. Les evolutions historiques du droit international humanitaire (jus in bello) et du droit de faire la guerre (jus ad bellum) ainsi que la creation recente du regime des droits de l’homme furent autant d’initiatives visant la lutte globale contre l’impunite. Aussi, dans cette perspective, le droit penal international (DPI), dont les balbutiements remontent a la mise en accusation de l’empereur Guillaume II d’Allemagne 1 , reussit a s’imposer en droit international a la fois comme sphere d’activites et champ d’etude, malgre une evolution somme toute controversee et intermittente. L’emergence de ce sous-champ donna lieu a la mise en place de programmes d’etudes et a des publications foisonnantes dans le milieu academique.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".