MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3126145115 · doi:10.1093/ajcl/avx033

The Ahistoricism of Legal Pluralism in International Criminal Law†

2017· article· en· W3126145115 on OpenAlexaff
James Stewart, Asad Kiyani

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Comparative Law · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegal pluralismLawCriminal lawPolitical scienceDoctrineLegal doctrinePluralism (philosophy)International lawLegal historyComparative lawWrongdoingSociologyLegal realismPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

International criminal law (ICL) is legally plural, and not a single, unified body of norms. Trials for international crimes involve a complex dance between international and domestic criminal law, the specificities of which vary markedly from one forum to the next. To date, many excellent scholars have suggested that the resulting doctrinal diversity in ICL should be tolerated and managed under the banner of “legal pluralism.” To our minds, these scholars omit a piece of the puzzle that has major implications for their theory—the law’s history. Neglecting the historical context of the international and national criminal laws that have informed and continue to inform ICL leads to the uncritical adoption of criminal law doctrine as a proxy for diverse social, cultural, and political values. This is often a false equation that results in important normative distortions, with major implications for the field’s self-image, function, and legitimacy. In particular, scholars and courts overlook that much criminal law doctrine globally is the result of either a colonial imposition or an “unsuccessful” legal transplant. In this Article, we revisit a cross-section of this missing history to contribute to both legal pluralism and ICL. For the former, we demonstrate that there is nothing inherently good about legal pluralism, and that in some instances, a shift from its descriptive origins to a more normative managerialism risks condoning illegitimate law. For ICL, our historiography shows how partiality is embedded in the very substance of ICL doctrine, beyond just the politics of its enforcement. At one level, this realization opens up the possibility of renegotiating, at least in certain circumstances, a universal ICL that is actually more plural in terms of values and interests than doctrinal pluralism. At another, it suggests that institutions capable of trying international crimes need to do far more to step away from the ugly legal history they have inherited.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.080
Scholarly communication0.0120.013
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0030.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.335 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Comparative LawSame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207