Explaining the Establishment of the Independent Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this dissertation is to discern and explain why states established the International Criminal Court (ICC) with an independent Prosecutor with the aid of theories of international relations. The theories utilized were neorealism, neoliberal institutionalism, historical institutionalism, constructivism and liberal-pluralism. In order to complete the above-stated task, two supplemental questions were asked: first, how may one able to explain policy formulation in regards to the ICC; and second, what accounts for the victory of the supporters. The comparative case study method of the ‘method of agreement’ was employed. Canada and the United Kingdom – from among the supporters of the institutionalization of the independent Prosecutor – and the United States and Japan – from among the opponents of the initiative – were selected for the study at hand. Elite interviews and declassified diplomatic documents were consulted and supplemented by analyses of secondary sources documents such as negotiating transcripts and transcripts of parliamentary debates. In the final analysis constructivism and its liberal variant – liberal constructivism – in tandem with liberal-pluralism seem the best able to explain the establishment of the Court with an independent Prosecutor because these two theories are best able to account for the role of ideas and interests of key actors during the process of establishing the Court. In addition, and given that the establishment of the Court is a substantial departure from its institutional predecessors, liberal constructivism and liberal-pluralism are also able to account for this revolutionary change in the establishment of international institutions. The study at hand highlights the role of domestic political actors in the acceptance of international treaties as well. Therefore, this study underpins the need for further scholarship in regards to under what conditions do states allow themselves to be bound by international legal mechanisms.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".