Addressing the Perpetuation of Violence and Impunity: A Call for Reforming the Definition and Enforcement of Genocide
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The heinous crime of genocide is an abomination that strikes at the very core of humanity.It represents the ultimate harm that can be inflicted upon a group of people, as it involves not only the extinguishment of their lives but also the eradication of their cultural existence.To provide a broader conceptual definition of genocide, Presser (2013) states, "Genocide has been called 'the crime of crimes' (Schabas, 2000).It strikes us as the worst possible harm because its eliminationist intent is absolute and explicit, because large numbers of people are harmed or meant to be harmed, and because it is often associated with unthinkable atrocities" (p.31).Despite the grave nature of this crime and the numerous atrocities and harms that are associated, this paper will argue that the current legal definition of genocide, as it is currently applied, contributes to the perpetuation of violence and aggression by being too narrow and selectively enforced, allowing those in positions of power to act with impunity.Thus, there is a pressing need to restructure international procedures overseeing global conflicts and amend the current application of international law to address these concerns.A point of focus of this paper will be the mass atrocities committed against the Tutsi minority during the Rwandan Genocide in 1994, in conjunction with the failed peacekeeping efforts by the United Nations and their role in the catastrophe in order to demonstrate the fallibility of international law and the shortcomings of mainstream criminology within the context of genocide.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it