Le financement des juridictions internationales et son incidence sur leur office : étude comparée du financement de la CIJ, de la CPI et du TIDM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Si l’argent seul ne fait pas leur bonheur, il contribue à permettre aux juridictions internationales de s’acquitter de leur mandat. À cet égard, elles sont inégalement pourvues. Certes, la Cour internationale de justice, le Tribunal international du droit de la mer et la Cour pénale internationale procèdent de façon quasi identique pour financer leur office. Pourtant, elles connaissent en la matière des fortunes diverses. Leurs succès — et aussi leurs échecs — variables sont justifiés par des caractéristiques qui leur sont propres notamment leurs mandats, leurs besoins financiers, leurs méthodes de travail et leurs situations institutionnelles. Elles connaissent en général des difficultés budgétaires, qui ne sont pas sans conséquence sur leur fonctionnement. Ces difficultés paralysent ou ralentissent leur action, ce qui détériore la qualité de la justice rendue. Elles peuvent ensuite contribuer à jeter le discrédit sur ces juridictions remettant en cause leur impartialité.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.001 |
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".