Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today many democratic states committed to the rule of law must grapple to delineate the bounds of their authority to combat international terrorism, which necessarily requires a definition of who the terrorist enemy is. When determining who is an enemy of the state, government is confronted by an existential question of politics, a question that many have claimed judges are unsuited to answer. Carl Schmitt's work in legal and political theory argues that the judiciary cannot be the guardian of the constitution because existential decisions are by nature unconstrained by law. This chapter considers the legal limits placed on government in defining not the international enemy, but the enemy within. It focuses on the decision of the Australian High Court in The Communist Party Case and argues that the best interpretation of the Court’s decision is that it relied on resources in the common law constitution to show that legality constrains both parliament and the executive even in the absence of an entrenched bill of rights. The author argues that the Schmittian choice ― either the parliament/executive or the judges — is a false one. There is the middle ground of legality ― the constitutional values of the rule of law ― which requires that when parliament and government make such a determination, they make it in a way that respects the requirements of the legality. Through a discussion of this case, as well as other cases from common law jurisdictions, the author shows how the common law exposes the constitutional resources of the rule of law in an area about which bills of rights rarely speak ― the legal constitution of both legislative and executive authority. Whatever the nature of the emergency or the political question, courts must ask what the legal limits are on the power of parliament and government.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".