A Comment on the Complementary Jurisdictionof the International Criminal Court: Adding Insult toInjury in Transitional Contexts?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author examines the principle of complementarity on which the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is based. Unlike its predecessors, the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the ICC can only take jurisdiction over a case when a state is unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute. The Court is thus designed to complement the work of national criminal courts. This article assesses whether this admissibility standard will allow the ICC to complement the work of truth commissions like that of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It concludes that the prospect of an ICC poised to assert its jurisdiction in cases where countries have chosen to forego prosecution in favour of a South African-style truth commission could undermine the effectiveness of such commissions. Such a prospect might thus dissuade states from utilizing truth commissions, thereby adding insult to already existing injuries in countries undergoing transition from pasts marred by gross violations of human rights.
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 | 0.015 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.165 | 0.114 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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".