Judicial constitutional control In Russia and foreign countries: models, significance and specificity
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction. Constitutional review is the cornerstone in maintaining the constitutional order, ensuring compliance with the rule of law and protecting individual rights in the state. Differences in models of constitutional review globally highlight its complexity and uniqueness. This factor necessitates a comparative study to reveal the specific mechanisms used in different legal systems. The article examines the models, significance and features of constitutional control In Russia and a number of foreign countries, determines the nuances of their functioning, as well as issues of interaction between the elements of constitutional control models. Materials and Methods. During the comparative legal analysis, the practice of functioning of constitutional control In Russia, the USA, Germany, Austria, France, Canada and Australia was studied. The primary sources were national constitutions, legislation, as well as landmark judicial decisions in several states. Secondary sources of research are scientific literature: monographs, periodical articles and expert analytical documents. A mixed approach facilitates a thorough examination of the structure and functions of constitutional review bodies in a broader political and legal context. Analysis. The study examines various models of constitutional review, in particular, the European (centralized Kelsen model), adopted In Russia, Germany and Austria, is compared with the American model (decentralized model of constitutional control in the USA), the hybrid (mixed) systems of Canada and Australia, which have regional features and combine elements of the American and European models, as well as the French model with its quasijudicial bodies of constitutional control. The comparative analysis is carried out according to several criteria, while covering the problems faced by systems of constitutional control. Results. A comparative study reveals various paradigms of constitutional control. Their examination determines to what extent the independence of the institutions of constitutional review critically affects the effectiveness of the work of constitutional review bodies, and which models demonstrate vulnerability from political influence. The need to ensure greater autonomy for constitutional review bodies and facilitate access to constitutional mechanisms is emphasized. The multifaceted nature of constitutional review is highlighted and an opinion is expressed on the possibility of further improving the institutions of constitutional review.
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 | 0,001 | 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 | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».