Messages from the Expressive Nature of icc Reparations: Complex-victims in Complex Contexts and the Trust Fund for Victims
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are great hopes for the International Criminal Court’s (icc’s) reparative aspirations, which are regarded as an answer to demands for more victim-centric approaches to the pursuit of justice for atrocity crimes. Reparations are recognised as a right of victims, and it seems appropriate that the icc should attempt to combine reparations with its retributive approach to addressing grave human right abuses. However, the potential negative communicative value of icc reparations must not be overlooked. For one, icc reparations have the potential to relieve some suffering but also the potential to exacerbate tensions and compound the challenges of reintegration and acceptance of complex-victims because of their expressive nature. This article argues that it is precisely because of the unique nature of the Court as retributive, as a voice of international condemnation, and as an intervener in complex contexts that the expressive value of its reparations may make it ill-suited to award reparations tied to convictions.
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 | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".