Challenges to Victim Involvement at the International Criminal Court: Shedding Light on the Competing Purposes of Justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Rome Statute saw the provision of three statutory rights for victims: the right to participation, protection, and reparations. The addition of these rights is an attempt to incorporate elements of restorative and reparative justice processes into a primarily retributive system. The emerging jurisprudence shows there are competing tensions developing in all areas. The right to participation saw initially broad decisions consistently scaled back by the Appeals Chamber to ensure a more streamlined approach. The right to protection, in contrast, has continued to be upheld by all Court levels resulting in significant trial challenges and delays. While the right to reparations remains untested, it is likely to only partially fulfill restorative aims. This thesis argues that while victim involvement has altered the traditional trial process, restorative aims will remain unmet. However, victim involvement has begun to shed light on the competing purposes of justice within the Rome Statute framework.
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 | 0.025 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.046 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".