Rule of Law and Its Guidelines and Indicators for Judiciary in Human Rights Issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rule of law is one of the very polemical and controversial concepts in the field of public law and political thoughts. This concept has been acclaimed in both international and domestic level and can be observed in the practice of the United Nations and many of states practically. In the light of the principle of the rule of law at the meantime ruling by law can be strengthened and also security and peace, development, democracy and human rights can be protected and promoted. The rule of law and human rights as two concepts with mutually interacting to each other has noteworthy great importance. An independent and impartial judiciary such as linkage has an important role in strengthening both of them.Human rights, separation of powers and judicial independence are regarded as some basis of the rule of law and as well as its consequence. Thus, in this regard rule of law has p very guidelines and indicators which some of them related to the judicial systems of states. In the light of exercise of these guidelines human rights are better protected and promoted.These instructions and guidelines generally are provided in international and regional human rights instruments to enforce in every sector of the state and especially for judges and judicial power to protection and promotion of human rights. This article investigates the relationship between rule of law and judicial system to introduce some measures and indicators of the rule of law to enforce them in the judiciary for better protection and promotion of human 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".