Bibliographic record
Abstract
To what extent are state officials held accountable for their actions? This essay will examine a specific aspect of this question, namely whether there is an exception to the general rule that the Head of State, Head of Government and Foreign Minister are immune from prosecution in another country’s national courts for serious international crimes. It will begin with a brief review of the relevant treaty provisions relating to immunity of state officials. Second, it will examine some pre-Arrest Warrant case law specifically on the issue of potential exceptions to the immunity rule for state officials. Third, it will review the Arrest Warrant Case, an ICJ decision that halted this trend and discuss some of the issues left unresolved by the decision. Fourth, it will review the ICJ’s discussion of immunity post-Arrest Warrant in Djibouti v. France. Finally, it will explore the concept of jus cogens and whether this could help reconcile the competing interests (state sovereignty and accountability for serious international crimes) at play in this issue. This essay will conclude that while the jus cogens nature of serious international crimes does not equate to an automatic carte blanche for removing immunity, it does strongly support the developing norm of limited exceptions to the general rule of immunity.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".