The so-called Magnitsky Laws from the Perspective of International Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The so-called Magnitsky Laws from the Perspective of International Law Abstract This diploma thesis treats the phenomenon of so-called Magnitsky acts, a subtype of targeted international sanctions, from the point of view of international law. The text of the thesis is structured into three chapters. The first chapter deals with the origins of Magnitsky acts. Documented are the circumstances of the incarceration and death of Sergey Magnitsky. Described are the origins of the first Magnitsky Acts, i.e., the U.S. Magnitsky Act and Global Magnitsky Act, and the spreading of analogous norms around the world. The second chapter is a survey and legal comparison of selected legislation - in the United States, Canada, European Union, and Czech Republic. Based on the literature and the individual norms, the features common to all Magnitsky acts are determined. Subsequently, the acts are compared using five criteria. These are sanction aspects, as a definition of the prosecuted behavior; creation of the sanctions list, as an entitlement of the government agencies to create such lists; individual sanctions tools; appeals and remedies in the sanctions process, or removal from the sanction list; the overview of the sanctioned entities. The third chapter discusses the nature of the Magnitsky acts in the context of...
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".