The Role of International Adjudicative Bodies in Prosecuting Genocide Crime: A Case Study of International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is intended to explain the urgency of the formation of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), as an ad hoc international court based on United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution No. 827 of 1993, to try perpetrators of genocidal crimes against ethnic Bosnian Muslims. The crime of genocide originated from the ethnic conflict that occurred in the federation of Yugoslavia. The research was conducted by using a qualitative method, based on analysis of data sourced from international journals, books, and other electronic sources. The results conclude that the genocide that occurred against Bosnian Muslim ethnicity is one form of international crime while threatening international peace and security in the Balkan region, also intended to break the practice of impunity against international criminals who are a common enemy of humanity (hostis humans generis). These two considerations form the legal basis for the issuance of the UNSC Resolution on the Establishment of ICTY. The establishment of ICTY as an international court is intended as a court used to try perpetrators of genocidal crimes against Bosnian Muslim ethnicities, so that similar crimes will not be repeated in the future, both in Yugoslavia and in various other countries.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".