After Impunity: The Anti-Impunity Norm, The Colombian Special Jurisdiction for Peace, and the Future of International Criminal Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The predominance of international criminal law as a frontline response to atrocity crimes prioritizes the countering of impunity as an overarching goal. A corresponding “anti-impunity norm” identifies the legal punishment of individual perpetrators as a core requirement in legal responses to atrocities. This anti-impunity norm – the requirement to prosecute and punish – is also a legal obligation for state parties to the International Criminal Court. But the anti-impunity norm equates impunity’s opposite – accountability – with the imposition of legal punishment. This narrow interpretation of impunity places limits on states’ ability to craft context-specific responses to atrocities while also fulfilling their legal obligations. The result is in part an explanation for why international criminal law’s future as a frontline response to atrocities is questionable. The “special sanctions” mechanism for perpetrators of atrocity crimes, part of Colombia’s comprehensive Final Accord with the FARC-EP rebel group, offers a valuable example of a national response to atrocities offering an innovative and sophisticated response to states’ legal obligations to punish under the Rome Statute. Special sanctions for cooperating perpetrators of international crime are designed to impose individual accountability while remaining distinct from retributive criminal punishment. But do these special sanctions meet Colombia’s international legal obligations? The essay develops a qualified positive response.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".