The Malabo Protocol, the ICC, and the Idea of ‘Regional Complementarity’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The African Union (AU) has taken steps to regionalize international criminal law through the expansion of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights (ACJHR) vis-à-vis the Malabo Protocol. The principle of complementarity is a cornerstone of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Rome Statute crystallizes a complementary relationship between the ICC and domestic legal systems under Article 17 but makes no mention of regional or ad hoc jurisdictions. Prospects for including regional jurisdictions within the principle of complementarity are contingent upon a positive judicial interpretation of the principle and clearly established obligations at each level. It will necessarily require funding and support by states. Such an approach will contribute to the ongoing development of a robust system of international criminal justice. In order to effectively resolve the issue of competing mandates and effective domestic implementation, a cooperative model needs to be espoused. Although hypothetical at present, the idea of ‘regional complementarity’ is one worth thinking about in the context of constructive reform at the ICC. The prospective ACJHR offers a useful framework to analyse the potential role of regional mechanisms within the international criminal law project, broadly considered.
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 | 0.024 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".