International and legal regulation of the application of satisfaction as a form of political responsibility of states
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper attempts to determine the principles of international legal regulation of the application of satisfaction as a form of political responsibility in international law. Theoretical provisions regarding the international legal regulation of the application of satisfaction as one of the forms of political responsibility according to international law are analyzed. Four forms of satisfaction were analyzed, which were derived by the famous researcher Patrick Dumberry from the University of Ottawa: The first - the responsible state simply apologized or officially expressed regret for committing an illegal act; The second - the state punished the representative or person responsible for the act; The third is when a judicial body makes a statement about the illegality of an action taken by the state. The fourth is monetary satisfaction. Satisfaction may be accompanied by symbolic material compensation for moral damage. The draft articles on the responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts developed by the UN International Law Commission (adopted by UN General Assembly resolution A/RES/56/83) were analysed. Thus, it is determined that the forms of compensation (reparation) are restitution, compensation and satisfaction: both separately and in combination (Article 34). Article 37 of the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts of 2001 deals with satisfaction as a form of compensation for damages, which refers to the first type of satisfaction mentioned above. The practice of the International Court of Justice of the United Nations regarding ordinary satisfaction was considered - the case "Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro" (2007), the case "Rainbow Warrior", the case "Corfu Channel", the case "Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Uganda)" . An example of the implementation of extraordinary satisfaction in international law is considered - the Declaration on the Defeat of Germany and the Decision of the Berlin (Potsdam) Conference. Based on the presented material, it was concluded that the application of satisfaction is confirmed by international judicial practice, in particular, by examples of declarative statements. The decisions of the International Court of Justice of the United Nations on the award of satisfaction are widely accepted, to some extent because the condemnation of an internationally wrongful act by an authoritative third party aims to achieve a balance between the interests of the parties in a particular case, on the one hand, and the fundamental interests of the international community, on the other.
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 | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".