The Perils of Progressive Jurisprudence: The <i>Nullum Crimen Sine Lege</i> Principle in International Criminal Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The nullum crimen sine lege principle is a fundamental principle of human rights, prohibiting both retroactive application of crimes as well as expansive interpretations and extensions by analogy. Yet throughout its historical evolution, from the emergence of novel crimes in the Charters of the International Military Tribunals at Nuremberg and Tokyo, to the expansive interpretations of such crimes by contemporary jurisdictions such as the ICTY, ICTR and ICC, international criminal law has been characterized by a privileging of substantive justice over the principle of legality. From filling normative lacunae to evolutionary adaptation of existing norms, the humanitarian interests underlying the criminalization of atrocities is often invoked to justify progressive jurisprudence. The paper considers whether this sensibility is a cause for celebration or a cause for concern, and whether the nullum crimen sine lege principle should be applied less strictly in the context of international criminal law.
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 | 0.022 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.103 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".