MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W30133502 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0201924

Admirality Judges: Flotsam on the Sea of Maritime Law?

2003· article· en· W30133502 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
John Russell Brown

Notice bibliographique

RevueHouston journal of international law · 2003
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueLaw, logistics, and international trade
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLawJurisdictionConstitutionAppealPolitical scienceDutyIndependence (probability theory)AdjudicationCommon law

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

I. INTRODUCTION United States Constitution and Congress have expressly granted admiralty and maritime jurisdiction to the federal courts. Exercising this authority, admiralty judges have enunciated principles of maritime law that provide both certainty to commercial shipping and protection to those who risk life or property at sea. Moreover, the image of the great maritime judges and their opinions have been a beacon to judges in other areas of the law. After two centuries of leadership, the tide has begun to turn on admiralty judges. Supreme Court--whose members are admiralty judges when they hear admiralty appeals--has recently abandoned its Constitutional duty of enunciating maritime law in favor of conforming admiralty law to Congressional enactments and filling in gaps in maritime law only when authorized by Congress. Apparently admiralty judges should now assume the role of followers rather than leaders. Have admiralty judges become flotsam on the sea of maritime law? II. WHAT IS ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME LAW? A. Power and Authority of Admiralty Judges importance of the admiralty judge in the United States precedes the adoption of the United States Constitution. Admiralty courts sat in the colonies that bordered the sea long before the Declaration of Independence. (1) After the colonies declared their independence, admiralty courts were established in all of the states to adjudicate admiralty claims. (2) Even when the colonies were governed by the Articles of Confederation, however, the states recognized the necessity of uniform admiralty law. Thus, the Articles conferred on the Continental Congress the authority to establish courts for appeal of maritime matters. (3) weakness of the central government under the Articles of Confederation was felt in the judicial and maritime areas as strongly as in any other realm. Justice Pitney noted that one of the chief weaknesses of the Confederation was in the absence of a judicial establishment possessed of general authority. (4) It was not enough for the Continental Congress to establish a maritime court of appeals to hear appeals from state courts. The weak point of the system was the absence of power in the central government to enforce the judgment of the appellate tribunal if it had to reverse the decree of the state court. (5) When the Constitutional Convention was held in 1787, the Founding Fathers had to address the necessity of a system of federal courts and whether such federal courts should be granted jurisdiction over admiralty cases. Although there was substantial debate over the extent of power and jurisdiction of federal judges, the grant of admiralty jurisdiction to the federal courts was added without controversy. (6) Alexander Hamilton stated the following: [The most bigoted idolizers of State authority have not thus far shown a disposition to deny the national judiciary the cognizance of maritime causes.] These so generally depend on the laws of nations and so commonly affect the rights of foreigners that they fall within the considerations which are relative to the public peace. most important part of them are, by the present Confederation, submitted to federal jurisdiction. (7) result of the Constitutional Convention was a strong affirmation of the need of federal authority over admiralty: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction ... (8) significance of this power given to the federal judiciary to hear admiralty and maritime cases is demonstrated by the fact that this is the only grant of jurisdiction in the Constitution that identifies an area of substantive law. Federal authority over admiralty and maritime law is addressed only in the Judicial Article. Oddly, the Constitution does not contain a similar grant of specific authority to Congress over admiralty and maritime law. …

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut 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 enseignants0,249
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,495

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,009
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0120,002
Communication savante0,0030,003
Science ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,1300,017

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 Opus0,036
Tête enseignante GPT0,251
Écart entre enseignants0,216 · 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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

Citations0
Publié2003
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHouston journal of international lawMême sujetLaw, logistics, and international tradeTravaux en français237 207