Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the state of “war crimes” today by thinkingthrough why the prosecution of war crimes has been frustrated forthe 2006 Israeli - Hezbollah War in Lebanon. Even though theinternational machinery for trying war crimes has been set up - aboveall, the ICC - and the means of documenting and publicizing suchcrimes have expanded and become widely accessible globally, it is nownearly impossible to prosecute major geopolitical perpetrators on theworld stage. The article focuses on legal issues regarding the conduct ofwar (jus in bello): how the threat of prosecution due to the use ofexcessive violence might affect the different tactical and strategic “self -interests” of the belligerents. Finally, it makes an argument in favourof when principles of proportionality (that the violence deployed wasexcessive and disproportionate to the threat) may trump principles ofequity (that both parties deserving of punishment must be prosecuted),and assesses the political effi cacy of prosecutions in this case. Thisanalysis brings to light several paradoxes in the fi eld of internationaljustice generally, or international humanitarian law more specifi cally,and suggests why there is a certain contemporary impasse in theprosecution of war 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.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".