Compelling War Correspondents to Testify: A Prerogative of International Criminal Tribunals?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A qualified testimonial privilege for war correspondents was recognized by the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the case of Prosecutor v. Brdjanin. This article examines whether war correspondents should enjoy such a privilege in international criminal tribunals. The author illustrates that, to maintain their legitimacy, international criminal tribunals must be able to make factually accurate findings. She further illustrates that the ability of international criminal tribunals to make factually accurate findings is dependant upon their ability to obtain reliable evidence, including witness testimony. The suggestion is made that, as testimonial privileges reduce the evidence that is available to international criminal tribunals, and thereby impair the tribunals’ fact-finding abilities, they should be granted sparingly and construed narrowly. The author recognizes that it is necessary to protect the public interest in the work of war correspondents and acknowledges that a testimonial privilege may be necessary to protect war correspondents from being compelled to testify about confidential sources and materials. She argues, however, that the qualified testimonial privilege established in Prosecutor v. Brdjanin – which seeks to protect war correspondents from being compelled to testify about non-confidential sources and materials – is unwarranted. In the author’s opinion, measures short of a testimonial privilege will suffice to avoid any adverse consequences that might flow from compelling war correspondents to testify about non-confidential sources.
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 | 0.017 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".