States' Responses to Issues Arising from the ICC Statute: Constitutional, Sovereignty, Judicial Cooperation, and Criminal Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This comparative study focuses on the legislative methods and techniques used in 12 countries to give effect to the International Criminal Court. The text covers both common law as well as civil law countries: Argentina; Brazil; South Africa; The Netherlands; Liechtenstein; France; Sweden; Germany; Norway; Italy; Canada; and the UK. The practice of each state forms a chapter focusing on constitutional, sovereign, and criminal issues. Two additional chapters discuss such issues now facing Japan and Mexico. The contributors focus on real issues encountered and methods and techniques actually employed with the purpose of serving as a practical guide to those countries that are still looking for methods to give effect to the Rome Statute. In each case the authors explain why certain legislative approaches were used and why others were not selected. The authors are all experts with years' of experience in the field; most of them participated in preparing the relevant domestic laws and in the making of the Rome Statute. Published under the Transnational Publishers imprint.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".