South Africa’s Proposed Exit from the Rome Statute: Alternative Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the aftermath of the Omar al Bashir case, South Africa’s engagement with the International Criminal Court (hereafter the ICC) is at an anti-climax. Conventional perspectives from the decisions of the ICC assert the sanctity of treaty obligations. However, alternative perspectives can be explored. There is a need to address continuing dissatisfaction with and limitations of the Rome Statute. Dissent by States parties may signal need for review of the treaty and introduction of new procedures for conducting consultations with States to improve compliance. The Rome Statute does not deal with resolving on-going armed conflicts and should be complemented by alternative processes for addressing such threats to peace and security. Withdrawal from treaties is a normal fact of life in the international legal system. States exit from treaties when changed circumstances, shifting domestic priorities, or dissatisfaction with treaty-based institutions create tensions between national interests and international commitments. This would not necessarily be regarded as retrogressive. Exit by a significant number of important states may be the catalyst required for reform of contentious aspects of the treaty system. Therefore, South Africa’s proposed exit from the Rome Statute can be a potentially positive development.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".