MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W256446364

International Law and Laws of War and International Criminal Law - Prosecution of Child Soldiers - United States V. Omar Ahmed Khadr

2010· article· en· W256446364 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniel P Ryan

Bibliographic record

VenueSuffolk transnational law review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawPolitical scienceLaw of warInternational lawCommissionCriminal lawTerrorismSpanish Civil War
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND LAWS OF WAR AND INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW--PROSECUTION OF Child Soldiers--United States v. Omar Ahmed Khadr, (Military Comm'n, referred Apr. 24, 2004) (1) INTRODUCTION At Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Omar Ahmed Khadr waits for his trial for war crimes, allegedly when he was fifteen years old, to resume. (2) Mr. Khadr's case raises the question of when, if ever, children should be prosecuted for violations of the laws of (3) In 2008, the Military Commission in the Khadr case ruled that the law does prohibit the prosecution of juveniles for violations of the laws of (4) While the Commission's holding may have been accurate as a matter of law, the policy of the United States to detain and prosecute juveniles for war crimes is inconsistent with the United States' obligations to rehabilitate and reintegrate soldiers. (5) FACTS Omar Ahmed Khadr, a Canadian citizen, was born on September 19, 1986 in Toronto, Canada. (6) In 1990, at the age of four, Khadr moved with his family to Pakistan and then in 1996, to Afghanistan. (7) On July 27, 2002, Khadr was captured by U.S. forces and held in detention in Afghanistan for three months before being transferred to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. (8) On February 2, 2007, more than four years after his capture, Khadr was charged with murder in violation of the laws of war, attempted murder in violation of the laws of war, conspiracy, providing material support to terrorism, and spying. (9) At the time of the alleged offenses, Mr. Khadr was fifteen years old. (10) On January 21, 2009, following the inauguration of President Obama, the Commission granted a four month continuance of Mr. Khadr's case while the new administration conducts a review of the Military Commission system and all cases before it. (11) HISTORY The Military Commissions Act The Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006 authorized the President to establish Military Commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war. (12) The MCA defines unlawful enemy combatants as: (i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its cobelligerents who is a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or (ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense. (13) International Law of Child Soldiers International law maintains the somewhat contradictory views that soldiers are to be treated as both victims and perpetrators. (14) Children unlawfully forced to participate in hostilities are to be disarmed, demobilized, and reintegrated into society, as required by the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Optional Protocol to C.R.C), State practice and opinio juris. (15) Significantly, the United States is a signatory to the C.R.C. (16) While international law gives preference to the rehabilitation and reintegration of soldiers, it does expressly prohibit the prosecution of children for violations of the laws of (17) Following the Second World War, at least two Allied military tribunals in Germany prosecuted children for war crimes.18 Matthew Happold has documented numerous examples of prosecutions of soldiers at the national level, notably in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda. (19) The statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone expressly grants the court jurisdiction over persons aged fifteen and above. (20) Even Amnesty International has implied that prosecution may be appropriate where the child soldier concerned was clearly in control of his or her actions, committed atrocities voluntarily and was not coerced, drugged or forced into committing atrocities. …

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0160.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.007

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSuffolk transnational law reviewSame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207