Les principes de justices fondamentale en matière de sécurité nationale (Principles of Fundamental Justice in National Security)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: L'auteure releve quelques messages-cles du Renvoi sur la Motor Vehicle Act (C-B), [1985] 2 RCS 486 : 1) la legitimite du controle judiciaire; et 2) la competence du pouvoir judiciaire de definir le contenu des principes de justice fondamentale sans decider des questions generales d'interets public. Elle evalue ensuite coment ces messags ont ete integres dans le cadre de la lutte contre le terrorisme en evaluant la reponse du pouvoir judiciaire face au « nouveau » cadre juridique mis de l'avant. Elle soutient que ce nouveau cadre juridique modifie sensiblement le role des avocats et des juges, et que les implications de ces changements sont encore mal definies. Selon elle, la question est de savoir si le pouvoir judiciaire doit integrer les imperatifs et la presumee specificite de la lutte contre le terrorisme aux principes de justice fondamentale, insister sur leur justification en vertu de l'article premier ou encore les rejeter carrement pour forcer le gouvernement a recouvrir a l'article 33 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertes ou a reviser sa strategie. L'auteure fait etat des implications pour l'ensemble du systeme judiciaire et de la confiance des citoyens a l'egard des differentes options et donne a entendre que les principes de justice fondamentale doivent refleter une preoccupation non seulement pour ce qui est des droits de l'inculpe, mais egalement pour l'integrite du systeme judiciaire dans son ensemble et les roles traditionnels des acteurs de ce systeme. English Abstract: The author identifies the key messages in Re BC Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 SCR 486: 1) that constitutional judicial review is legitimate; and 2) that the judiciary is competent to define the content of the principles of fundamental justice but must avoid general public interest questions. She then assesses how these messages were integrated in the war against terrorism and its development of a legal regime. She first questions the claim of difference that is made to establish the new legal regime and questions its impact on the roles of judges and lawyers. She then asks how the judiciary should react to the new regime: should it modify the principles of fundamental justice to reflect the alleged specificity of the war against terrorism, should it demand a justification under Section I? Should it reject it and force the government to either use section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or abandon its strategy? She reflects on the implications for Canadians' confidence in the judicial system of each option.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".