Terrorism exception to State immunity and the magic of <i>jus cogens</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional international law confers absolute immunity for the acts of the State (Acta Jure imperii). However, absolute immunity also means that States are absolved from violations of international law. This prompted restrictions on State immunity for commercial activities (Acta Jure Gestionis) and territorial tort. Yet, the restriction on State immunity did not extend to human rights violations or jus cogens breaches. Although the developments triggered the addition of exceptions to State immunity in domestic legislation, like the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in the United States, State practice is generally inclined towards State immunity rather than exceptions. On 27 June 2023, Iran filed an application in the ICJ against Canada, challenging Canada’s legislation allowing civil damages against Iran for terrorist acts. Although previous studies have highlighted the terrorism exception to State immunity, there is no literature linking the terrorism exception to jus cogens; the author intends to fill this void by arguing that State immunity must be waived for acts of terrorism because of its jus cogens status, in doing so, the author challenges the existing jurisprudence on State immunity.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".