“Isms” or the International Criminal Court and its place in the international legal order – review of a quarter of century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article provides an overview of the twenty-five-year existence of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC has faced various challenges since its establishment. Some of these challenges were partly rooted in the work done in the final days of the Rome Diplomatic Conference, where a mutually acceptable text had to be forged on the basis of often conflicting textual proposals. Other challenges emerged with the changes in the political will of several states. The chambers of the ICC tried to establish a coherent jurisprudence able to cope with the eventual imperfections of the Rome Statute. While jurisprudential practice can help identify appropriate content for the complex formulas, which are sometimes the fruit of diplomatic ambiguity, political challenges are more difficult to overcome. Political actors cited concerns regarding “anti-Africanism”, lack of efficiency, and “politicisation”—critiques often intended to conceal a lack of genuine co-operation or even animosity towards independent international control. As this article shows, an important part of the legacy of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) lies in the autonomous development of ICC jurisprudence and the specificities of common and continental law, as well as “criminal law” and “public international law”. The relevance of the ICC cannot be measured in the number of adjudicated cases and condemned perpetrators alone. The impact of the ICC on reparation and assistance to victims and the uniform interpretation of international criminal law at various law faculties and military academies cannot be overlooked.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".