The Problem of ‘Uncertainty’ in International Criminal Law and the Common Law ‘Method’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract International criminal law has evolved from abstract ideas of an international criminal jurisdiction in the early twentieth century to encompass a comprehensive set of tribunals, rules, and methods. This article explores the contribution of the common law to the development of international criminal law, drawing on two key historical episodes – the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals, and the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) – to consider the common law’s historic influence over, and relationship to, uncertainty within the system of international criminal law. First, the article highlights how British jurists framed the normative uncertainty vis-à-vis the idea of international criminal justice in their contributions to this Yearbook. Second, it examines the characteristics shared between common law and international criminal law, with a view to appraising the potential relationship of both ‘systems’. Finally, it interrogates the differing treatments of the common law throughout the development of substantive international criminal law over time, considering how judges utilized the common law as they navigated the complex dialectic between ‘statutory’ and ‘judge-made’ 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".