Prosecutorial strategies and opening statements : justifying international prosecutions from the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg through to the International Criminal Court
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forschung ber das internationale Strafrecht fokussiert fr gewhnlich auf strategische Entscheidungen der Anklger, die die Aufnahme von Ermittlungen, die Kompetenz der Staatsanwaltschaft und den Geltungsbereich der juristischen Verfolgung von Kriegsverbrechen betreffen.Darber hinaus gibt es wenig Erkenntnisse darber, wie Strafverfolgungen innerhalb der internationalen Strafgerichtsbarkeit begrndet werden.Auf der Grundlage der Anklageerffnungen von vier Chefanklgern des Internationalen Militrgerichtshofes in Nrnberg sowie der Erffnungsreden dreier Flle vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof untersucht dieser Beitrag die Bandbreite der Begrndungen, die Strafverfolger in internationalen Strafgerichtsprozessen heranziehen.So ist zu erkennen, dass die Anklger in Nrnberg auf eine Vielzahl von Begrndungen aufbauten, whrend sich die Anwlte des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofes auf ein engeres System an Begrndungen beriefen.Darber hinaus
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".