MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412057102 · doi:10.1093/jicj/mqaf022

Piercing the Colonial Veil?

2025· article· en· W4412057102 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carsten Stahn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Criminal Justice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicColonialism, slavery, and trade
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonialismLawPolitical scienceHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Crimes against humanity have a longer grounding in colonial history than publicly acknowledged. The crimes against children of mixed European and African ancestry (Métis) throughout Belgian colonial rule in the Congo are a paradigm example. In the aftermath of the 1884–1885 Berlin Conference, historian George Washington Williams called for the prosecution of the mistreatment and discrimination of such children under King Leopold’s rule in the Free State of Congo. He branded Leopold’s atrocities as crimes against humanity. However, throughout much of the 19th and 20th centuries, colonial crimes have been covered by a veil of silence. The concept of crimes against humanity has largely been interpreted through developments after World War II, including the Holocaust. More than 120 years after Williams’ call, the Brussels Court of Appeal has closed a historical cycle and qualified colonial crimes against Métis children, born under Belgian colonial rule between 1948 and 1952, as crimes against humanity. This contribution relies on this ruling to analyse the historical marginalization and blindness towards colonial crimes in international criminal justice and ways to confront them. It shows how major legal instruments governing international crimes (crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide or apartheid) have rendered colonial crimes distant and invisible. The article then examines contemporary techniques to engage with colonial wrong (new semantic recognition, state responsibility), as well as the merits and shortcomings of the Métis Appeal decision. It argues that the decision carries historical significance and expressive force since it challenges the idea of the ‘colonial veil’ and highlights the potential of the concept of crimes against humanity to capture historical crimes. It concludes that the concept of crimes against humanity should not be read through the prism of the Holocaust, but in a more multi-directional way, in terms of past legalities, inter-temporal dimensions and colonial continuities, and highlights implications for ongoing discussions on the development of crimes against humanity (e.g. ILC Draft Articles on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.800
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.344 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of International Criminal JusticeSame topicColonialism, slavery, and tradeFrench-language works237,207