Criminal liability for state treason: domestic and foreign experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article examines the issue of criminal liability for state treason based on the domestic and foreign experience of certain countries. The conducted research allows us to conclude that the problem of state treason remains relevant in a number of foreign countries as well. However, for Ukraine, since the beginning of its modern formation as an independent state, amidst the ongoing war by the Russian Federation against Ukraine, and especially in the conditions of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the issue of state treason and the establishment of proper criminal responsibility for committing such a crime has become extremely acute. Consideration of the issue of normative-legal regulation of criminal liability for state treason in Ukraine and certain foreign countries, such as the United States of America, the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada, Denmark, France, Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Belgium, Spain, and Georgia, allows for further exploration of the effective counteraction to this crime. Attention is drawn to the fact that in the criminal legislation of some countries, unlike Ukraine, there are No. special grounds for exemption from criminal liability for state treason. In these cases, the legislator is either strict towards individuals who commit the respective crime or there is a possibility that exempting individuals from criminal responsibility may create a sense of impunity. In order to avoid problematic issues in the application of Article 111 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine in practice and taking into account the existing real threats to the sovereignty, territorial integrity, inviolability, defense capability, state, economic, or information security of Ukraine, it is proposed to consider the possibility of expanding the objective side of state treason at the legislative level, namely the list of forms in which it can manifest and the list of subjects of state treason.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".