Semantics or Substance? David Scheffer's Welcome Proposal to Strengthen Criminal Accountability for Atrocities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
s fascinating proposal, if I understand it properly, calls for an amalgamation of various categories of internationally condemned behavior-mainly genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes-into a new concept known as ''atrocity law.''This will facilitate implementation of the responsibility to protect vulnerable populations.Pedantic debates about matters of essentially technical relevance to criminal prosecution will not be allowed to impede sincere efforts at intervention or to provide a pretext for those who shirk their obligations.Leslie Green mooted a similar idea in the mid-1990s, but it didn't gain any traction at the time. 1 In informal discussions as part of the drafting of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), I argued for Green's proposal to conflate crimes against humanity and war crimes but was regularly told that this simply wasn't going to fly.And yet there are many recent developments favoring this drive for greater coherence and more simplicity.The international tribunals themselves have promoted the idea of general principles and concepts with respect to war crimes that are drawn from such formulations as common article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.In effect, common article 3 serves as a catchall category that obviates the need for more precise provisions.The Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) took two texts drawn from provisions drafted in the 1940s and ''interpreted'' them to mean all ''serious violations of international humanitarian law.'' 2 We can see the same kind of consolidation in the tendency of the tribunals to convict offenders of both crimes against humanity and war crimes.With rare exceptions, every ''atrocity'' committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina was characterized as both a war crime and a crime against humanity.Without suggesting that the distinction is devoid of any significance, in terms of putting evildoers behind bars it has not proven to be a terribly productive nuance.Much the same can be said of the distinction between genocide and crimes against humanity.The commission of inquiry into Darfur concluded against a finding of genocide but said that crimes against humanity appeared to have been committed and that there was no reason to suggest that this made the matter any less serious:The above conclusion that no genocidal policy has been pursued and implemented in Darfur by the Government authorities, directly or though the militias under their control, should not be taken as in any way detracting from, or belittling, the gravity of the crimes perpetrated in that region.As stated above genocide is not necessarily the most serious international crime.Depending upon the circumstances, such international offences as crimes against humanity or large scale war crimes may be no less
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".