Analysis of Criminal Responsibility of Users of Chemical Weapons in International Documents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is written entitled "Analysis of criminal responsibility of the users of chemical weapons". The issue of chemical weapons and criminal responsibility of users of this weapon is very important because countries like Iran starting a war of aggression and invasion against violations of humanitarian law, international criminal is not considered responsibility for the instigators of war. This study aimed to explore international responsibility of individuals and legal assign and use of chemical weapons and the role of domestic law in support of victims of such weapons has been developed. The main hypothesis of this study tries to answer this question that what challenges are dominant criminal responsibilities of users of chemical weapons. It states that; the impact of global powers on international issues are the lack of law, guarantees, good performances and the most important challenges is the lack of cooperation by governments. This research, descriptive analysis of documents, according to primary sources, including data and legal jurisprudence and secondary sources, including laws papers has been developed. The findings of this study show that, the principles of international law banning the use of chemical weapons, in addition to the contract law, is customary international law, hence, even if the country has no weapons of mass destruction also a member of the international conventions, proscription, in case of violations of international humanitarian law can still be prosecuted in the s.
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 | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".