Bibliographic record
Abstract
Images of genocide, mass graves and torn families come to mind when one hears the term ‘war crime’. But does cultural heritage have similar legal rights? Is it protected by the Rome Statute? What lays in the future of cultural heritage protection against destruction? And where do the boundaries of law lie with regards to the rights of cultural objects? The purpose of this paper is to answer these questions by focusing on the 2016 International Criminal Court’s (ICC) judgement in the Al Mahdi case and the analysis of the 2021 ICC’s Policy on Cultural Heritage born in its wake, which will shape our perception of the cultural heritage protection in the years to come. In the first, introductory part of the paper the author ponders upon the concept of cultural heritage, trying to understand why it matters. In turn, the second part of the article focuses on the investigation of the many faces of interactions between cultural heritage and law. The third part of the paper is devoted to the analysis of the Al-Mahdi case heard before the ICC. The author explains how the case was brought before the ICC and the way in which the Court reached its now precedential decision, showing the various ways in which it pushed the boundaries of law and our understanding of what constitutes a war crime. In the fourth part of the paper the author turns his attention to the Policy on Cultural Heritage proposed by the ICC in June 2021 in close collaboration with UNESCO, looking into the new paths it puts forward for cultural heritage. The concluding part of the paper is focused on the question of what the ICC’s Policy means for the future of the prosecution of the crimes against cultural heritage, with the author asking whether it may be an effective tool and deterrent in fighting against the destruction of world’s heritage, and wondering how the rights of monuments may be further broadened in the coming years.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.003 |
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".