On the Difficult Case for a Functional Interpretation of the Unwillingness Criterion Before the International Criminal Court
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Article 17(2) of the Rome Statute states that the International Criminal Court (ICC) will possess jurisdiction over domestic proceedings when the state is deemed “unwilling” to prosecute. This dimension of the ICC’s complementarity scheme has not yet been conceptualized by jurisprudence. This article will argue that the provision enshrining the unwillingness criterion is inherently vague, and that there consequently exists a risk that loopholes could be created by allowing certain types of sham trials to take place among member states. Conversely, the vague character of this provision may also allow for a broad and intrusive interpretation that would risk upsetting state parties to the Rome Statute, in turn posing the danger of engendering withdrawals from the statute. This article will propose a conceptual framework for the application of this criterion to prevent these twin dangers. In doing so, this article will suggest drafting a universal code of standard practice for international criminal law prosecutions to assess the unwillingness criterion in a more accurate fashion.
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 | 0.028 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| 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".