L’Abus De Droit: L’Anténorme - Partie 1 (Abuse of Right: The Antenorm - Part I)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La theorie de l’abus de droit est une theorie de la legislation. Elle a pour objectif d’encadrer l’application des droits prescrits par les lois. Le titulaire d’un droit engage sa responsabilite lorsque l’acte qu’il autorise ordinairement est anime par l’intention de nuire. C’est la la formule du Code civil du Quebec qui, en 1994, en a consacre le principe. Le principe de responsabilite que pose l’abus demeure toutefois problematique en ce sens qu’il vise des activites que la loi permet a priori. La theorie de l’abus donne en effet aux tribunaux le moyen de lever cette immunite de sorte que l’acte pourtant conforme a la lettre de la loi devient contraire a son esprit, c’est-a-dire au droit. C’est en ce sens que l’on peut dire que l’abus est l’antenorme. Ce principe de superlegalite donne une place de premier plan au pouvoir judiciaire: par la jurisprudence, mais au-dela de la jurisprudence, ecrivait Josserand. Il ne s’agit pas de donner aux tribunaux le droit de legiferer, mais plutot d’eviter, dans des cas exceptionnels, la tyrannie des droits. L’etude de la theorie de l’abus de droit nous invite a redecouvrir les premiers mouvements de la pensee socialisante du debut du vingtieme siecle. Est abusif l’usage asocial d’un droit individuel. L’abus doit etre ainsi replace dans le contexte d’une doctrine civiliste fleurissante qui s’inscrit contre la methode de l’exegese et le subjectivisme juridique. Mais l’interet de son etude n’est pas simplement historique. Elle offre l’hypothese particulierement attrayante d’une nouvelle application. Ne a une epoque ou le juriste s’interroge sur les imperfections d’une legislation qui se complexifie, l’abus semble tout particulierement adapte pour s’appliquer dans des disciplines fortement reglementees et sujettes au changement, telle la propriete intellectuelle; une matiere dont on deplore regulierement les derives et les abus. Ce texte est la premiere partie d’un article publie en deux numeros.The theory of the abuse of right is a legislation theory aimed at framing the application of rights prescribed by statute. The holder of a right is liable when a normally authorized act is animated by an intention to harm. This is the formula articulated in the Civil Code of Quebec which, in 1994, consecrated the principle of the abuse of right. The principle of responsibility underlying the abuse theory remains, however, problematic since the abuse theory targets activities which are a priori permitted by law. Indeed, the abuse theory allows courts to lift the immunity of the right-holder so that an act that conforms to the letter of the law becomes contrary to the spirit of the law — i.e., contrary to law. In this sense, abuse can be described as the “antenorm.” This principle of superlegality gives judicial power a prominent role: “par la jurisprudence, mais au-dela de la jurisprudence,” wrote Josserand. It is not a question of giving courts the power to make law but rather of avoiding the tyranny of rights, in exceptional circumstances. A study of the abuse of right must uncover the first movements of socializing thought at the beginning of the twentieth century. The asocial use of an individual right is abusive. The abuse theory must be placed in the context of a flourishing civilian doctrine that opposes the exegetic method and juridical subjectivism. The study of this doctrine is not of purely historical interest, as the doctrine may also offer a new application that is particularly attractive. Born at a time when jurists reflected on the imperfections of increasingly complex statutory law, the theory of the abuse of rights appears particularly suited to areas of law that are heavily regulated and subject to changes. One such example is intellectual property, whose excesses and abuses are often deplored. This text is the first part of an article published in two different issues.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".