Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the Kampala adoption of a regime for the crime of aggression has been generally hailed as a breakthrough, it needs to be understood as part of the long-term evolution of international criminal justice as a peace project. Jus contra bellum considerations have, if anything, dramatically declined in the second half of the 20th century as a central theme in the comprehension of international criminal justice. Compared to an earlier era, starting in the interwar period and culminating in Nuremberg and Tokyo, that saw ‘crimes against peace’ as the ‘crimes of crimes’, contemporary international criminal tribunals are much more concerned with ‘atrocity crimes’. This evolution is strongly correlated to evolving ideas about the nature of international peace and security that are increasingly understood not in their interstate dimension but, rather, as threatened by the breakdown of societies into conflict. It may even be that, compared to a classical approach in which the international criminal justice project was seen as a crucial part of the collective security regime, international criminal justice is now one of the factors that potentially undermines traditional prohibitions on the use of force. Taking seriously the idea that international criminal justice can be understood as a peace project, this article will delineate some of the ways in which it has also contributed to redefining the very meaning of peace in potentially problematic ways.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".