Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The slave trade prohibition is among the first recognized and least prosecuted international crimes. Deftly codified in, inter alia, the 1926 Slavery Convention, the 1956 Supplementary Convention, Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions (AP II), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the norm against the slave trade — the precursor to slavery — stands as a peremptory norm, a crime under customary international law, a humanitarian law prohibition and a non-derogable human right. Acts of the slave trade remain prevalent in armed conflicts, including those committed under the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shām (ISIS) Caliphate. Despite the slave trade’s continued perpetration and the prohibition’s peremptory status, the crime of the slave trade has fallen into desuetude as an international crime. Precursory conduct to slavery crimes tends to elude legal characterization; therefore, the slave trade fails to be prosecuted and punished as such. Several other factors, including the omission from statutes of modern international judicial mechanisms, may contribute to the slave trade crime’s underutilization. Also, the denomination of human trafficking and sexual slavery as ‘modern slavery’ has lessened its visibility. This article examines potential factual evidence of slave trading and analyses the suggested legal framework that prohibits the slave trade as an international crime. The authors offer that the crime of the slave trade fills an impunity gap, especially in light of recent ISIS-perpetrated harms against the Yazidi in Iraq. Therefore, its revitalization might ensure greater enforcement of one of the oldest core international crimes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.834 | 0.660 |
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".