Peering Behind the 'Institutional Veil' to Assess State Behavior in the Security Council: Does/Should ICC Membership Make a Difference?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A considerable literature exists on whether the Security Council’s actions towards the ICC as such are broadly consonant with the Rome Statute and, to a lesser extent, the UN Charter. That literature, however, tends to treat the Security Council as a single bloc, and to judge the legality of its behavior entirely independently from the behavior of individual Security Council members. In revisiting this literature, this article takes its cue from theories of international organization that emphasize the obligations of member states in international bodies. It thus examines the behavior of states in the Security Council in relation to the ICC as a productive angle to understand how states reconcile various obligations of “good citizenship” vis-a-vis international institutions. The article distinguishes between States Parties to the Rome Statute and non-States parties, and for each category examines their record both in terms of participation in debates and voting, as well as in relation to processes triggering the Court’s jurisdiction (deferral) and limiting it (deferrals and exceptions within referrals). It finds that although States Parties to the Rome Statute are clearly under more pressure to take seriously the institutional integrity of the ICC when in the Council, both States Parties and non-States Parties’ behavior in the Security Council are required to reconcile competing international obligations. The article emphasizes that the constraints that bear on all States in the Security Council context may be relatively light, but that they do include the need to take seriously the demands of “international peace and security.”
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 | 0.027 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".