ENDING IMPUNITY: CRITICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE PROSECUTION OF HEADS OF STATE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 1990, nearly seventy heads of state have been prosecuted for crimes committed while in office. From a legal perspective, the prosecutions have been possible largely due to an erosion of the state immunity principle and the emergence of specialized courts with a mandate to prosecute political figures. Interesting questions arise as to why the legal landscape shifted and whether the trend towards greater numbers of prosecutions has enhanced the rule of law. In their book, Prosecuting Heads of State, editors Ellen L Lutz and Caitlin Reiger shed light on these larger questions. In this review, the author explores Lutz and Reiger's premise that the increased willingness to prosecute heads of state has been the direct result of activist lawyering, and questions whether the rule of law can truly be enhanced by prosecutions that are inextricably linked to political motivations. The author concludes by cautioning against the over-reliance on judicial accountability mechanisms in transitional justice contexts.
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 | 0.024 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".