Rights Protection Without Judicial Supremacy: A Review of the Canadian and British Models of Bills of Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the enactment of the Human Rights Act UK (1998), Australia is the only common law country without a comprehensive system of legislative or constitutional protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Australia is at risk of legal and philosophical isolation because of this. A reassessment of Australia’s stance on human rights protection is necessary. A major facet of this reassessment is the link between democracy and human rights. This article will focus on institutional models of human rights promotion and protection that are consistent with Australia’s democratic tradition. This article will explore modern notions of democracy, and the balance of power between the institutions of government under modern bills of rights. Particular features of modern bills of rights, which institutionalize the debate about human rights between the three arms of government, will be discussed. This discussion will proceed in the context of two modern rights protective instruments, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1982 and the British Human Rights Act 1998. This comparative study will be instructive for Australia, particularly as the question of enforceability of a bill of rights has historically been an impediment to the adoption of an Australian Bill of Rights.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".