MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1987359688 · doi:10.1353/tlj.2005.0014

The Logic of the Rule of Law: Lessons from Willis

2005· article· en· W1987359688 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
David Dyzenhaus

Notice bibliographique

RevueUniversity of Toronto Law Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueCriminal Law and Evidence
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLawSkepticismCLARITYRule of lawPhilosophySociologyPolitical scienceEpistemology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In any event the parables sometimes drawn from the Stuart period by some twentieth century judges – 'Her Majesty's Judges' (a nice term), as we call the members of the state dispute-deciding department – to support decisions against the 'Executive' (a nasty term) are to me theology in its purest form.1 Is somebody being actually hurt by some actual defect in the machinery of government and, if so, what is that defect and how can it be remedied: these are the questions I should like to see asked.2 I Introduction The themes of this special issue of the University of Toronto Law Journal are Willisian rather than Willis, general issues that arise out of Willis's contribution to public law rather than his actual arguments. However, on rereading Willis to get a grip on the Willisian, I found Willis himself irresistible. It is not just the magnificence of his prose that attracts me, but the fact that his arguments seem as fresh and as topical today as anything that I've read in the last twenty years. Willis presents with the utmost clarity problems that public lawyers are grappling with today. This rereading, however, has confirmed the view that I have held ever since my first more cursory forays into his work: Willis was unable to deal with the logic of the rule of law. He wanted rule by law, but not the rule of law;3 and he was deeply sceptical about any claims that support judicial review on the ground that judges are the guardians of the 'enduring' or 'fundamental' or 'constitutional' values of the rule of law. In his last major essay on administrative law (1974), he described such claims as theological in nature. The 'currently fashionable cults' that fasten onto them do damage to 'effective government' if they are 'allowed to infiltrate too deeply into the procedural part of administrative law.' He identified the cult of 'the individual,' which leads to prisoners complaining of their treatment or demanding a 'formal "right to be heard"' [End Page 691] when applying for parole; the 'cult of "openness,"' which leads to claims by the press 'to the right to dig into confidential government files'; and the 'cult of "participatory democracy,"' which leads to claims by '"concerned" busybodies to the right to take court proceedings to curb, say, alleged illegal pollution or alleged dereliction of duty by police.'4 Willis thought that the way to avoid being 'global and theological' was to be 'specific and practical,' to focus on reality, which he always claimed was his method. But he did not trust judges to adopt this focus, since they would inevitably be attracted to abstract theological questions about fundamental constitutional values. And their answers to these questions would involve their imposing 'individualist values whose sole claim to validity is that they are lawyer's values based, as lawyer's values always are, on a long-dead eighteenth-century past.'5 Thus Willis argued throughout his career that one should put one's trust in government and civil servants' values.6 The real protection against official arbitrariness was not, in fact, judicial control: the 'real safeguards are question time in the House of Commons, the newspapers, the pressure groups and, most important of all, the good sense and decency of the administrators themselves.'7 What one needed was statute law and a properly trained civil service, and problems that arose in implementing legislation could be raised in Parliament. But what Willis failed to see – or, perhaps more accurately, saw but was unwilling to take properly on board – was that one cannot have rule by law, rule by statute law, without the logic of the rule of law. The more accurate description – that Willis saw but was unable to take on board the fact that rule by law involves the logic of the rule of law – is revealed by...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,958
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,877

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,032
Tête enseignante GPT0,285
Écart entre enseignants0,253 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations13
Publié2005
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUniversity of Toronto Law JournalMême sujetCriminal Law and EvidenceTravaux en français237 207