Guardians of Legal Order: The Dual Commissions of Public Fiduciaries
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Critics of public fiduciary theory have argued that public officials and institutions cannot properly be considered “fiduciaries” because the duty of loyalty does not permit a fiduciary to serve two masters with conflicting interests. We argue that this critique of public fiduciary theory is overstated because it rests on a false distinction between private and public fiduciary relationships. Conflicts of duty that arise in public fiduciary relationships are not categorically different from those that arise in private fiduciary relationships. In some cases, the fiduciary owes not only discrete “first-order” duties to the beneficiary, but also wider “second-order” duties to the broader public or to public purposes. First-order fiduciary duties are the familiar legal duties that a fiduciary owes to her beneficiary. Second-order fiduciary duties emanate from a separate fiduciary relationship between the fiduciary and public-regarding institutions that have been entrusted to the fiduciary’s administration. Second-order fiduciary duties therefore serve a different and more systemic purpose: they ensure that a fiduciary’s loyalty to her beneficiary does not compromise other institutions entrusted to her care that are designed to provide equal freedom under the rule of law. Part I of our paper uses two examples of fiduciary relationships governed primarily by private law — lawyers and physicians — to illustrate how second-order fiduciary duties operate. While lawyers are required to act in the best interests of their clients (first-order), they also bear a variety of prescriptive and proscriptive duties as officers of the court to promote the just and orderly administration of justice (second-order). Physicians likewise bear both first-order duties to their patients and second-order duties to the broader public, including obligations to prevent serious threats that their patients pose to others. Part II explains how second-order fiduciary duties contribute to the deontic legal structure of public offices and institutions. In particular, clarifying how second-order duties operate in public law helps to explain what kinds of legal obligations public authorities bear to whom and why. Part III demonstrates that national authorities also bear second-order fiduciary duties under international law. As fiduciaries of humanity, states are legally obligated to govern cooperatively so as to protect human rights for the benefit of international society as a whole.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».