After the Rights Revolution: Bills of Rights in the Postconflict State
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bills of rights are now central components of liberal democratic constitutions. But debates over the character and content of bills of rights are no longer at the center of more recent rounds of postconflict constitutional politics. This review puzzles through the rise and decline, but persistence, of rights-based constitutionalism. Neither comparative constitutional law nor constitutional politics offers the answer. The literature on civil war settlement suggests that bills of rights serve two functions in postconflict constitutions: a regulative role to check the abuse of public power and a constitutive role to serve as the basis of a new constitutional identity. Bills of rights cannot do the work that is expected of them. Politicized judiciaries, constitutional underenforcement, and the ex post nature of judicial review undermine the ability of the bill of rights to serve as a credible commitment against future abuses of human rights. Moreover, the idea of a bill of rights as a source of shared political identity abstracted from a contingent political and historical context is unlikely to succeed in practice.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".