The legitimacy of judicial review in South Africa's new constitutional dispensation : insights from the Canadian experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper will concentrate on the contentious issue of judicial review under a supreme constitution. South Africa is a newcomer to the world of rights-talk and justiciability of government action. Our past is so devoid of a commitment to civil liberties and individual rights, that an overwhelming amount of faith and hope is placed in the Bill of Rights and our courts for the success of a future South Africa. With these aspirations comes the danger of complacency, and an inability to see our fledgling constitutional supremacy in a critical light. Given the open-textured structure of the constitution and the enhanced powers of judicial review which judges now possess, our courts face the prospect of acting in a manner which may run contrary to the will of the majority. This counter-majoritarian problem has already been experienced in the greatest constitutional democracies the world over. This paper will attempt to draw insights from critical Canadian scholars who are concerned about the power of Canadian judges under a supreme constitution, and will ultimately focus on examining the most effective means for judges to exercise their power of judicial review in a legitimate manner.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.069 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".