MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132881176

"Bringing international criminal law home": the normative contribution of the international criminal court treaty regime

2005· dissertation· W7132881176 on OpenAlexaff
Kate Brookson-Morris

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2005
Typedissertation
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsBank of CanadaBibliothèque et Archives nationales du QuébecLibrary and Archives Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreatyCriminal lawInternational lawNormativePublic international lawCriminal procedureProportionality (law)Surrender
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis explores the contribution of the newly established International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty regime in the pursuit of universal international criminal accountability. It argues that in order to make international criminal law effective, domestic Courts or other judicial bodies must be able to secure the presence of the accused to stand trial. However, this thesis demonstrates that achieving the voluntary compliance of States with requests for the surrender of an indicted individual has often been difficult. In response to this problem, this thesis proposes that a voluntarist system, such as the ICC treaty regime, has the potential to help. This is because the international treaty regime reflects a shared commitment by States to key norms of international criminal law, and has a high degree of legitimacy. This thesis argues that the ICC treaty regime offers the best chance for achieving widespread compliance with the "surrender norm," and for "bringing international criminal law home."

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.018
Scholarly communication0.0120.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicInternational Law and Human Rights→French-language works237,207→