MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184298578 · doi:10.7202/1079905ar

Requiem for Universal Jurisdiction in Spain

2021· article· en· W3184298578 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
José Elías Esteve Moltó

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue québécoise de droit international · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Immigration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpunityPolitical scienceUniversal jurisdictionLawJurisdictionConstitutionLegislaturePoliticsEconomic JusticeTerrorismRepealHuman rightsGenocide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The two relevant legislative reforms that universal jurisdiction was subjected to have been a serious blow to the fight against impunity in Spain. The reasons for this de facto repeal of universal justice can only be explained by political interference of foreign governments whose citizens were cornered by Spanish justice. However, with regard to the 2014 reform, there was the possibility that the Constitutional Court might declare that the reform violated some articles of the Spanish Constitution. This last hope evaporated when this court recently rejected the appeals. First, the ruling on 20 December 2018 rejected the Socialist MPs’ arguments. Then, with this precedent, in 2019 the vast majority of cases pursuing international crimes – Tibet, Falun Gong, Rwanda, Guantanamo, the Ashraf refugee camp in Iraq, Couso – were definitively closed. After having exhausted all Spain’s internal options, now the different appeals before the European Court of Human Rights are being rejected. Meanwhile, universal jurisdiction has only survived in the Spanish courts if it involves pursuing a few cases of terrorism, leaving those who were being investigated for war crimes and genocide to go scot-free.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue québécoise de droit internationalSame topicHuman Rights and ImmigrationFrench-language works237,207