Tribunals and guidelines: Exploring the relationship between fairness and legitimacy in administrative decision-making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The objective of this paper is to address two questions: why do administrative tribunals such as the Immigration Refugee Board resort to developing guidelines, and what are the principles and values which legitimize these initiatives? The role of tribunals in policy-making and/or policy-implementing raises important questions. For example, to whom are tribunals accountable for the development and application of guidelines where the functions of a tribunal - especially the adjudicative functions - are intended to be independent of government? The authors seek to understand better the dynamics of tribunals' role in the policy process. They propose a classification of guidelines based on the function they perform in administrative proceedings and provide an analysis of the normative framework underlying guidelines. The authors explore how a legal analysis of guidelines might shed on the theory and practice of public administration. The authors conclude that in the absence of a nuanced understanding of the legal status of guidelines, the relationship between administrative practice and the rule of law remains uncertain and unstable. Sommaire: Cet article cherche à répondre à deux questions: pourquoi les tribunaux administratifs comme la Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié ont-ils recours à l'élaboration de directives? Et quels sont les principes et les valeurs qui justifient ces initiatives? Le rôle des tribunaux dans l'élaboration et/ou la mise en œuvre des politiques soulève des questions importantes. Par exemple, à qui les tribunaux doivent-ils rendre compte en ce qui concerne l'élaboration et l'application de directives lorsque les fonctions d'un tribunal - en particulier les fonctions juridictionnelles - sont supposées être indépendantes du gouvernement? Les auteurs cherchent à mieux comprendre la dynamique du rôle des tribunaux dans le processus d'élaboration de politiques. Ils proposent une classification des directives d'après la fonction qu'elles jouent dans les procédures administratives et ils fournissent une analyse du cadre normatif sous-tendant ces directives. Les auteurs étudient comment une analyse juridique des directives pourrait éclairer la théorie et la pratique de l'administration publique. Ils concluent qu'en l'absence d'une compréhension nuancée du statut légal des directives, la relation entre la pratique administrative et la primauté du droit demeure incertaine et instable.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".