Islamic Law and the Balancing of Justice and Peace in Iraq’s Post-IS Landscape
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Balancing justice and long-term peace and security in a postconflict context is highly complex. This article discusses the challenges in Iraq’s post-IS (Islamic State) landscape. Based on a review of relevant Arabic, English and Persian academic scholarship on Islamic law and Islamic political science on accountability and transitional justice, it discusses what Islamic law dictates state authorities to do with detained suspects of atrocity crimes and terrorism and explores possibilities in Islamic law to balance justice and long-term peace and security. The article concludes that crimes against the state should, according to Islamic law, in principle lead to harsh punishments. However, that same body of law also provides for opportunities to adopt non-retributive alternatives, if this allows government to more swiftly handle the security crisis, re-establish public harmony and prevent further bloodshed in the future. The popular perception of the Iraqi people supporting retributive approaches could however pose an important barrier that could block any changes to Iraq’s current transitional justice approach.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it