Souveraineté parlementaire et armes à feu: le fédéralisme coopératif dans la ligne de mire? (Parliamentary Sovereignty and Firearms: Cooperative Federalism on the Line)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Depuis plusieurs annees, le principe du federalisme cooperatif a rempli deux fonctions dans la jurisprudence de la Cour supreme du Canada. D’une part, il a favorise une reconnaissance, de facto ou de jure, de chevauchements de competences. D’autre part, il a permis aux juges d’ecarter des obstacles a la normativite en reseau. Cette conception d’un federalisme « souple » ou « moderne » tranche avec la structure officiellement « dualiste » du federalisme canadien et invite les pouvoirs legislatifs et executifs de divers ordres de gouvernement a cooperer. L’arret de 2015 relatif a l’abolition du registre des armes d’epaule offre un terreau fertile pour analyser une troisieme fonction du federalisme cooperatif, qui emerge lorsque les autorites publiques de divers ordres de gouvernement ne cooperent pas, ou plus, ou souhaitent agir de maniere unilaterale en depit d’arrangements coordonnes preexistants. Dans cette affaire, la Cour supreme a refuse de revoir sa vision maximaliste du principe la souverainete parlementaire - l’un des piliers du federalisme « dualiste » - a la lumiere du federalisme cooperatif. Elle a ainsi implicitement refuse de reconnaitre aux divers legislateurs une quelconque obligation d’agir de bonne foi, en raison du contexte federal dans lequel ils evoluent. Bien qu’une dissidence robuste reitere son engouement pour le federalisme cooperatif, elle le fait en procedant a une reevaluation particulierement contextualisee des competences legislatives en l’instance, plutot que par la reconnaissance d’une quelconque forme de « loyaute federale ». Il en resulte une coexistence malaisee des conceptions « dualiste » et « cooperative » du federalisme dans la jurisprudence constitutionnelle canadienne. English Abstract: Over the years, the Supreme Court of Canada has evoked the principle of cooperative federalism to promote a de facto or de jure legislative overlap. It has also used cooperative federalism as a justification for removing (or ignoring) technical obstacles to the normative networks on which cooperative arrangements rest, and which belie the profound dualist nature of the official Canadian federal architecture. The Court’s 2015 ruling on the abolition of the Long-gun registry by federal authorities offers a fertile ground for reflecting on a third dimension of cooperative federalism, which arises when federal partners do not - or no longer - wish to collaborate. In that decision, the Court refused to revisit its maximalist understanding of Parliamentary sovereignty - one of the pillars of the “dualist” conception of federalism - in light of cooperative federalism. It thus implicitly refused to infuse constitutional law with any obligation on the part of federal partners to act in good faith in their dealings with one another. While a robust dissenting opinion reasserts a commitment to cooperative federalism, it does so through a strongly contextualised assessment of the distribution of competences, rather than by any recognition of some form of “federal loyalty”. The end-result is an uneasy co-existence of two distinct - and contradictory - conceptions of federalism in Canadian constitutional law.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".