Accountability for Crimes of International Law in Canada: an overview and a comparison with United Kingdom practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a general overview of the principal legal steps taken by Canada in moving from a culture of impunity to a culture of accountability in the field of crimes against International Law1, and undertakes a comparative study of practices in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) in this field. The paper deals primarily with the prosecution in these States of those suspected of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide when the suspects are originally from other countries and commit these crimes in other States. I argue that after a period of impunity, both countries have entered a new era of accountability, which can be traced to the beginning of the XXI century and the implementation of the Rome Statute of 1998.3 However, given the close link between mounting social and political pressure and the prosecution of suspected war criminals, as both countries’ past practices show, the current legal response represents little more than an initial step.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".