In Search of Accountability: A Critical (If Preliminary) Assessment of the Literature on Canadian-Nigerian Engagements on the Immunities of State Officials for Human Rights Violations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The trials of German and Japanese state officials following the end of World War II at the International Military Tribunals in Nuremberg and Tokyo along with treaty obligations undertaken by states since at least the establishment of the United Nations, have together given rise to the question of whether states and their officials are entitled to immunity for violations of human rights. This question was highlighted by the case against Pinochet Ugarte of Chile, which came more recently before the United Kingdom House of Lords. The case propelled the immunity of state officials into the limelight of judicial and academic discourse and resulted in increased human rights advocacy for accountability against senior state officials. Since the 1990s, the practice of the United Nations Security Council of establishing ad hoc international criminal tribunals under their peace and security mandate, and the referral to the International Criminal Court and/or its preliminary investigation of later cases arising from conflicts in places like Darfur, Libya, and North Eastern Nigeria, sustain the impetus for this article.
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 | 0.022 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".