Why is The Hague Sitting on the Fence in Prosecuting Boko Haram Terrorism in Nigeria?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract On 18 November, 2010 a preliminary examination of the situation in Nigeria was announced and for almost a decade, investigation has not yet begun. Ten potential cases have been identified, seven for Boko Haram and three for Nigerian Security Forces (NSF). This article investigates whether issues of complementarity and admissibility provide any legal barriers capable of withholding investigation; and whether granting national amnesty to Boko Haram can hinder investigation and prosecution by the International Criminal Court. It employs a qualitative methodological approach for investigation and evaluation regarding the issues discussed. It argues that the situation in Nigeria has met the entire legal framework for investigation and prosecution to proceed and that the arrest of Abubakar Shekau, Abu Musab AlBarnawi, and Abu Abdullahi Ibn Umar al-Barnawi, the Boko Haram leaders will weaken the group, and provide the needed external help and intervention desired to end the terrorism.
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 | 0.011 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".