Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction A conspicuous distinction between Asian constitutional frameworks and those of many constitutional liberal democracies – particularly those in the Anglo-American tradition, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Australia – is the omission of a constitutionalised and elaborate framework of emergency powers from the national constitutions of these liberal-democratic countries. Does the existence of such a framework in many Asian constitutions uphold or undermine the rule of law? To what extent can the courts protect the rule of law in the face of a deployment of sweeping powers following a declaration or proclamation of emergency? Can specific constitutional norms be crystallised by the courts so that the constitutionality of emergency powers might continue to be tested in the courts? The theme running through this chapter is that in times of crisis (real or imaginary) the invocation of sweeping powers embodied in a constitution poses a more serious threat to constitutionalism than when such powers are in ordinary statutory form. The next part of the chapter (Part II) examines the experience of constitutionalised emergency powers in Asia, explaining how those powers operate and the problems arising from their use. The following part (Part III) defends the use of ordinary emergency powers in light of this experience. The dilemmas of constitutionalised emergency powers In many Asian countries, the framers of the constitution were motivated by the best of intentions when they advocated the embodiment of emergency powers as a set of constitutional powers.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".