L'évolution des fondements de la publicité des procédures judiciaires internes et son impact sur certaines procédures arbitrales internationales (The Evolution of Internal Open Court Principles and its Effect on Certain International Arbitration Procedures)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: La publicite de ]a justice est une garantie fondamentale du bon deroulement de la procedure et du droit des parties A un proces juste et equitable. Principe de droit procedural fondamental solidement ancre dans notre tradition juridique, la publicite ne se reduit plus aujour-d'hui au droit des parties a l'quite et a la justesse de la procedure. Le public lui-meme reclame un droit a la publicite encourage dans cette voie par la Charte canadinnee des droits et libertes qui fait de la presence symbolique de la societe dans les pretoires un droit des tiers a assister aux proces et a acceder aux informations qui y circulent. D'un principe de procedure dans l'interet des parties et de la justice, la publicite est devenue un droit au profit des tiers qui n'hesitent pas a le defendre. Cette evolution n'est pas sans consequence pour la confidentialite de l'arbitrage. Des groupements d'interet nord-americain revendiquent le droit d'assister aux audiences arbitrales des lors que l'enjeu du litige met en cause des interets plus generaux que ceux des parties. Le Canada et les Etats- Unis favorisent l'ouverture de certaines procedures arbitrales ne pouvant ecarter dans le contentieux international un principe auquel ils attachent toutes les vertus dans leur ordre juridique interne. Si l'evolution des fondements de la publicite des procedures aservi de levier a l'ouverture de certaines procedures arbitrales internationales, elle ne decoule cependant pas sur une internationalisation du principe de publicite. Pour l'heure, la publicisation du contentieux international s'opere au detriment des interets parties rompant avec un fondement essentiel de la publicite.English Abstract: In essence the open court principle ensures the due process of law and the parties' right to a fair and equitable hearing. Procedural law is a fundamental principle solidly anchored in our legal tradition that today stretches beyond the party's right to a process that is both fair and equitable in the public eye. The public itself asks to be informed based on the Canadian Charters of Rights and Freedoms recognition of the symbolic presence of society in the courtrooms as a third-party right to attend hearings and have access to information disclosed in that context. Initially merely a procedural principle in the interest of parties and justice, open court is now a well-advocated third-party right. This evolution does affect confidentiality issues in the arbitral context. Special North-American interest groups allege they are entitled to attend arbitration hearings where the issue at hand is of general importance and goes beyond the sole interest of parties involved. Canada and the United States favour the opening of some arbitral processes, holding that a principle of great importance in domestic law should not be lost in the context of international litigation. If reasons advocated for the transparency of the legal process have led to an opening of some international arbitrations this principle is not yet a set rule internationally. For now, international hearings are made public to the detriment of parties, and fall short of the justifications for the open court concept.
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 | 0.021 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
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".