La interpretación constructiva en el constitucionalismo commonwealth: ¿activismo o vandalismo judicial?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En este articulo se analiza el modelo de constitucionalismo que opera actualmente en Canada, Nueva Zelanda, Gran Bretana y Australia, y en especial el tipo de interpretacion juridica que permite a los jueces alterar el sentido literal de las disposiciones legales con objeto de hacerlas consistentes con los derechos protegidos. El articulo comienza con una breve descripcion de la estructura basica del modelo commonwealth como un esquema cooperativo de proteccion de derechos. A continuacion, se revisan varios ejemplos de interpretacion “constructiva” en la jurisprudencia de la Corte Suprema canadiense y de la Camara de los Lores britanica, con objeto de subrayar los limites que los jueces se autoimponen en su labor interpretativa. Por ultimo, el autor trata justificar este tipo de interpretacion mediante una concepcion sustantiva de la legalidad, en la que se incluyen los valores constitucionales que los tribunales invocan para revisar la legislacion. Palabras clave: Revision judicial, constitucionalismo, interpretacion constructiva, soberania parlamentaria, derechos de los homosexuales y matrimonio del mismo sexo. Abstract: This paper examines the model of constitutionalism that operates today in Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Australia, with particular focus on the duty of progressive interpretation that this model imposes on the judges. According to this kind of interpretation, legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the protected rights, even if that leads beyond the literal meaning of the legal norms. The paper starts with a brief description of the basic structure of the model as a cooperative scheme of rights protection. Later, it offers an analysis of some examples of the constructive interpretation in the case law of the Canadian Supreme Court and the British House of Lords, with the aim of highlighting the self-imposed limits of judicial activism. Finally, the author attempts to find a proper justification for this kind of interpretation through a substantive conception of legality, which includes the constitutional values that judges invoke to revise the legislation. Keywords: Judicial review, constitutionalism, progressive interpretation, parliamentary sovereignty, rights of homosexuals and same-sex marriage.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".