Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction John Willis memorably characterized himself as a '"government man," "a legislation man," and "a what actually happens man" ... [who tried] to talk administrative law with a civil service and political science accent.'1 He railed against the widespread legal use of 'constitutional theology' and 'lawyer's values'; disparaged the modern 'cults' of individualism, participatory democracy, and openness; and bemoaned the growth of public law cases litigated by '"concerned" busybodies.'2 From the perspective of one who thinks that 'theological' concepts such as the rule of law have value – and not just of the lawyerly kind – I propose to use Willis's writings as a launching pad to explore several of the shortcomings and strengths of the sort of functionalism and realism he espoused. It is a tricky terrain to traverse, and I will do my best to fulfil my role as a respectful critic and a reliable guide who uses both her feet and her head in the 'shadowy and arduous borderland between law, political science and public administration.'3 I begin by summarizing what constitutes the 'global and theological' and the 'specific and practical' for Willis.4 Here I suggest which aspects of Willis's thought we should take to heart and which aspects remain [End Page 767] undertheorized as they relate to the rule of law. At the very least, I hope it will be clear that functionalist, positivist, and realist approaches tell us only part of the intricate story that is the rule of law. I will then argue that the rule of law is a complex synthesis of the two moralities that Lon Fuller has described as the moralities of duty and of aspiration.5 Contrasting Fuller's broader and deeply theoretical functionalism with Willis's more institutionalist approach will establish why we need to reunite these two approaches within the discussion of the rule of law; why this synthesis is relevant for a reconsideration of functionalism, positivism, and realism; and what it tells us about a rule of law regime. Fuller's understanding of law, I will argue, comports with certain aspects of the metaphor of 'institutional dialogue,' a metaphor that purports to describe the actual and ideal relationships between Canadian judicial and legislative institutions. While I endorse such a concept in theory, I concur with critics that the lack of empirical accuracy combined with normative disengagement renders it dangerously close to the 'theological.' At the end of the day, the rule of law is less theology than politics, and legal scholars must face up to the task of disclosing which political theory, on their understanding, best supports and endorses the rule of law and its associated practices. Indeed, I assert that the rule of law is a belief – a Fullerian politico-legal fiction – that requires the endorsement and practice of the three 'cults' Willis dismissed as dangerous and unpromising. In the final section, I explain why legal scholars need to attend to trends discussed in political theory or risk the outright dismissal of this important concept by other disciplines. II The gospel according to John (Willis), abridged A The Disciple of Functionalism Willis's oeuvre displays a persistent and sardonic realism channelled into functional analyses. His basic institutional questions remain the problem of dividing up government powers and 'entrusting government work to those bodies which are most fitted to carry it out.'6 Such a clear concern [End Page 768] for the distribution of power holds little regard for any judicial use in administrative law of concepts prefaced by the weasel-prefix 'quasi-' (e.g., quasi-judicial, quasi-legislative, quasi-constitutional), which only worked to fudge the distinction between the legislative and the judicial, to the detriment of administrative agencies of the time.7 Willis therefore argued for the proper recognition by the judiciary of the necessary existence of the modern administrative state, with administrative agencies performing a vital regulatory and intermediary function based on a combination of good judgement...
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,025 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».