Application of the State Immunity Rule in the International Criminal Justice System: Problems Arising and a Critique of Legal Response Mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The state immunity rule was founded upon such sound rationales as respect for the sovereign equality of all states and non-interference with state functions. However, its application in the international criminal justice system produces numerous problems. These include impunity for violation of peremptory international legal norms (like the prohibitions on serious international crimes) and violation of human rights. It also undermines the individual accountability and justice administration missions of the system because it shields state officials from criminal responsibility and subjects their victims to injustice. The international community has adopted various legal mechanisms which attempt to respond to these problems by abolishing state immunity for international crimes. However, some weaknesses, including external political influence, selective justice, and lopsided implementation against developing states, render the mechanisms sometimes ineffective. This thesis examines the problems arising from the rules application, evaluates the response mechanisms strengths and weaknesses, and suggests reforms in the mechanisms.
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 | 0.076 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.024 |
| 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".