The International Criminal Court: Between State Delegation and International Jus Puniendi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A series of controversies that have structured the life of the International Criminal Court over the last two decades and which are often discussed separately can be traced to fundamental disagreements about the foundations of its authority. For some, the Court further crystalizes a sort of ius puniendi of the international community that is a direct continuation of the commitment to repress certain fundamental international crimes; for others, the key to the Court’s authority is, if anything, better understood as a function of sovereign delegation and agreement. The article explores the merits of these theories of international criminal law and jurisdiction, both as theories and in light of the actual practices of international criminal justice. It may well be that an international ius puniendi can be said to exist in the abstract, particularly when it comes to core international crimes and the need to repress them. Even if the origin of some cardinal international criminal prohibitions is conventional, these prohibitions may have become so ingrained in the international legal order as to become inherent to it. But the public order and universal character of international crimes does not necessarily or easily translate to whatever particular institutions are devised to punish them. The article suggests, in this context, that on balance the practices of the ICC are still better understood as a direct function of state consent. This is true when examining both the practice of the Court towards non-states parties and, crucially, towards states parties. To see the Court as ‘merely’ the Court of its states parties, however, is hardly to give up on the idea of universal repression but to see it as mediated in practice by the complex and valuable agency of those states which pursue that aim.
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 | 0.015 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".