Sexual minorities under international law and the Rome Statute's gender provisions: A step forward for recognition, or a rubber stamp for outlaw status?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Rome Statute to the International Criminal Court gender was defined as "the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society ... not indicat[ing] any meaning different from the above." The intention on the part of some parties to the drafting process was to exclude homosexuals from the scope of the Statute. This thesis examines the potential of the compromised gender definition with regard to the ongoing protection or redress offered under international law to sexual minorities facing persecution and their rights in general. It is argued that this reflection of global homophobia perpetuates societal perceptions of sexual minorities as outside the protection of so called universal human rights. Historically, the creation of out groups through social and legal exclusion has resulted in the most egregious human rights violations of our time. It is suggested that a reversal of societal attitudes can only be achieved by presenting a balance to the current religious voice, at an international level, that is determinative of state behaviour.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".