Repairing transgenerational harm in the Ongwen case before the International Criminal Court: The next frontier in reparative justice for international crimes?
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
The Ongwen case marks a turning point in international criminal justice in several respects. It presented an opportunity for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to clarify the concept of transgenerational harm and reassess the standard of evidence required to prove this type of harm. One of the novel and fundamental issues refers to repairing transgenerational harm. The concept of transgenerational harm is undertheorised in the international (criminal) law literature. It remains a novel question for the ICC), being first addressed in the Katanga case in 2017. The limited jurisprudence and scholarship on this matter place the ICC in uncharted territory, requiring it to decide on and develop a coherent and consistent understanding of reparative justice concerning transgenerational harm. This article focuses on transgenerational harm in the specific context of the Ongwen case, its reparation orders, and in light of the evolving jurisprudence of the ICC. As this is unlikely to be the last case where the Court is called upon to assess reparations for this kind of harm, the Ongwen case presents a unique opportunity to reflect on the implications of repairing transgenerational harm in relation to international crimes.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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