Value-free extradition? Human rights and the dilemma of surrendering wanted persons to China
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A key tool for fighting crime, international extradition raises human rights concerns: The wanted person might suffer rights violations in the country to which he or she is extradited. How do countries balance the need to bring offenders to justice with the need to respect their rights? Conventional wisdom suggests that human rights concerns receive growing emphasis in extradition treaties, legislation, and case law. This article, however, shows that the commitment to human rights in extradition is quite shaky, even among countries that are strongly committed to human rights. This finding results from an analysis of the Australian and Canadian debates over the signing of extradition treaties with China. In Australia, government lawyers and the foreign ministry did not consider China’s human rights record as an obstacle to extradition. In Canada, the government argued that extradition to China was consistent with human rights standards. In both countries, the interest in strengthening relations with China outweighed the commitment to human rights. Overall, this article advances our understanding of the status of human rights in criminal justice policy; it also contributes to the analysis of human rights engagement with China.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it