FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND THE “MARGIN OF APPRECIATION” OR “MARGIN OF DISCRETION” DOCTRINE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When an international court decides to keep certain information confidential and orders a ban of any publicity upon them, does it have to abide by the requirements of necessity and proportionality? These requirements have been established by the different human rights conventions and by the jurisprudence of the human rights courts, and human rights bodies. However, for the evaluation of the requirements of necessity and proportionality, states dispose of certain margin of appreciation. International criminal courts might invoke the margin of appreciation doctrine for the same reasons. This paper explores the doctrine of the margin of appreciation recognized to states while assessing a situation before curtailing freedom of expression. After exploring the margin of appreciation doctrine, its justification, the criticism that it faces and the scope of its application, it appeared that it is a well-established and well-accepted doctrine, despite its disadvantages. The relevant case law was then studied in an attempt to come up with a theory concerning its extension to international criminal courts. However, the studied literature or case law was inconclusive. There could be a legal gap in this field. In any case, it seems that international law offers no protection of individuals’ rights at this level in particular. The only recourse open is an appeal, but before the same court. It is clear that checks and balance procedures are not available in what concerns international criminal courts. If a state has a margin of discretion, at least we know that internal remedies and procedures are available, and that they hinder abuse attempts, which is not the case in international criminal courts. This is perhaps a weakness that makes peoples rather uncomfortable about international criminal justice despite the huge relief to see international crimes tried and punished.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".