Notice bibliographique
Résumé
General principles of law are basic rules whose content is very general and abstract, sometimes reducible to a maxim or a simple concept. Unlike other types of rules such as enacted law or agreements, general principles of law have not been “posited” according to the formal sources of law. Yet, general principles of law are considered to be part of positive law, even if they are only used as subsidiary tools. They constitute necessary rules for the very functioning of the system and, as such, are inducted from the legal reasoning of those entitled to take legal decisions in the process of applying the law, notably the judiciary. They also constitute integrative tools of the system as they fill actual or potential legal gaps. In international law, general principles of law have been the object of much doctrinal debate based on the different meanings attributed to the notion and the theoretical problems that they pose. Much confusion derives from the use of the expression “fundamental principles of international law” that is at the top of the legal system and originates in treaty or custom (e.g., the principle of sovereign equality of states or the principle of the prohibition of the threat or the use of force) and that will not be dealt with here. Given the wording established in Article 38, paragraph 1(c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (“general principles of law as recognized by civilized nations”), the question of the origin of general principles of law as applied at the international level has also been a matter of controversy. The common perception is that these principles find their origin in the domestic legal systems. Once there is the conviction that some of these general tools are commonly shared principles that can be found in the domestic systems, they can also be applied in international law. They are logic inferences that can be found in any legal system: the principle of reparation for caused damage, the principles of interpretation of rules, or those used for the resolution of conflicts of rules—many of them known through Latin maxims—are good examples. The judiciary has also developed a number of general principles of law, such as audiatur et altera pars, actori incumbit onus probandi, or the fact that the judge of merits is also judge of the incidental jurisdiction. However, they are also logic inferences that are related to particular areas of international law, giving room for the emergence of general principles specifically applicable in the realm of international law, for example the principle of humanity in international humanitarian law. Given the definitional problems that the notion poses, the first references will be to works and jurisprudence on the topic so as to set the field under scrutiny. Likewise, the various histories that have been recounted about the notion’s emergence will be dealt with before engaging with definitions and other more substantial matters. The authors wish to thank Ms. Lena Holzer (PhD candidate, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies) for her helpful research assistance.
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,014 | 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 ».