Combating Child Pornography: International Legal Regulation and Experience of Ukraine and Foreign Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relevance of the topic is determined by the fact that child pornography is a serious threat to the safety and well-being of children, and combating it requires a comprehensive approach at the national level and international cooperation. Thus, the purpose of this study is to analyse international legal regulation in the field of combating child pornography, the experience of Ukraine and such foreign countries as France, Japan, India, the United Kingdom and Canada. The objectives are to identify the main regulatory provisions, mechanisms and approaches aimed at preventing and combating child pornography. The study was conducted using a number of scientific methods, including dialectical, formal and logical, analysis, comparison and generalisation methods. The authors draw attention to the concept of child pornography. It is determined what actions are considered to be the crime of child pornography and are criminalized. The recommendations and obligations of countries that have ratified these acts are analyzed. The article analyses the issues of criminalization of child pornography offenses in the legislation of the respective countries, criminal liability measures, establishment of national organizations and structures to combat it, etc. It was concluded that the maximum term of imprisonment an offender can receive in Canada and Great Britain, and one of the smallest – in Japan and India. The article also disproves the hypothesis that approaches to combating child pornography are identical in individual countries with different legal systems. The authors draw attention to the problem of determining the status of graphic materials and works of artificial intelligence that contain signs of child pornography. The authors also raise the issue of criminal legal assessment of viewing child pornography, including live broadcasts. It is stated that no country is immune to this form of child sexual exploitation. Attention is drawn to international cooperation, which is key to sharing best practices, resources and information between countries. It is argued that national governments, law enforcement agencies and civil society need to work together in a concerted effort to ensure the protection of children in the world. This is important, among other things, to combat the avoidance of responsibility by criminals.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".