JOURNALISTIC FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AT THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has addressed the limits to journalistic freedom of expression more frequently and in more detail than other tribunals that resemble it. In its Rules of Procedure and Evidence a broadly common law concept of contempt of the Tribunal was adopted. The jurisprudence of the ICTY establishes that a violation of a court order as such constitutes an interference with its administration of justice and that it is not for a party or a third person to determine when an order “is serving the International Tribunal’s administration of justice”. The Tribunal has also held that the disclosure of confidential evidence by another third party does not mean either that this information is no longer protected or that the relevant court order has been de facto lifted or that its violation will not interfere with the Tribunal’s administration of justice. In deciding whether a restriction of the right of a journalist to freedom of expression was justified, the Appeals Chamber considered whether it was provided by law and whether it was proportionate and necessary for the protection of public order. The jurisprudence of the ICTY in this area is relevant to the practice of other international and internationalized criminal courts because of the similarity of their rules and the comparable impediments to the enforcement of their orders.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".