Порівняльно-правовий аналіз законодавства зарубіжних держав про відповідальність за геноцид
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the diversity of approaches to the criminalization and penalization of the crime of genocide, based on a comparative analysis of the legislation of 90 states worldwide. It has been established that the majority of legislators have stipulated liability for the aforementioned crime directly within the criminal code. At the same time, the legislators of Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Philippines, Portugal, Rwanda, South Africa, Sweden, and Uruguay have prescribed liability for genocide in specific legislative acts. It has been determined that legislators have adopted varying approaches to the implementation of international legal norms concerning liability for the crime of genocide. While certain legislators have reproduced the relevant international legal norms contained in the 1948 Convention and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court verbatim or with minimal textual amendments that do not affect the substance, others have transformed the aforementioned norms of international law to a greater or lesser extent. It has been elucidated that in Argentina, Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, New Zealand, and Rwanda, the referral method was employed in the criminalization of genocide. It has been clarified that a number of legislators (specifically, Andorra, Austria, Belarus, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chad, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Honduras, Lesotho, Lithuania, Liechtenstein, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Uruguay) provide an expanded range of groups protected from genocide, in comparison to the 1948 Convention. It has been established that, alongside those enumerated in the relevant international legal acts, the legislators of Angola, Andorra, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Estonia, Ethiopia, Italy, Lithuania, Mongolia, Nicaragua, North Macedonia, Panama, Paraguay, Spain, Uruguay, and Vietnam have included other acts committed against members of a particular group of people within the objective element of genocide. The differences in the legislative formulation of the forms of genocide, as outlined in international legal acts, have been analyzed. Particular attention has been directed to the Italian experience in the endeavor to criminalize cultural genocide. The specificities of the criminalization by legislators of various states of conspiracy to commit genocide and direct and public incitement to commit genocide have been established. A significant diversity of existing approaches is noted, not only in the criminalization but also in the penalization of the crime of genocide. It is emphasized that the analyzed foreign experience may be useful in improving the domestic criminal law prohibition pertaining to liability for the specified crime. In particular, the identification by some legislators of other groups of people, not specified in international legal acts, against whom genocide is committed, as well as the expansion of the list of actions that constitute the objective element of this crime, deserve serious attention.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it