Bouzari v Iran: Testing the Limits of State Immunity in Canadian Courts (Bouzari C Iran: Évaluation Des Limites De L'Immunité Des États Étrangers Devant Les Tribunaux Canadiens)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English Abstract: Does state immunity limit the jurisdiction of Canadian courts in the context of civil proceedings relating to acts of extraterritorial torture? Such was the issue in Bouzari v. Islamic Republic of Iran. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that, pursuant to Canada’s State Immunity Act (SIA), Iran was entitled to immunity in Canada for torture committed within its own borders. In this article on the law of state immunity, the decision in Bouzari is analyzed in light of contemporary international law and relevant jurisprudence. It is argued that the SIA has not evacuated the Canadian common law of state immunity, which continues to apply to all matters not covered by the statute. At common law, it is finally argued, torture cannot be considered an acta jure imperii. French Abstract: L'immunite etatique limite-t-elle la competence des tribunaux canadiens dans le cadre de poursuites civiles portant sur des actes de torture extraterritoriaux? Telle etait la question soulevee dans l'affaire Bouzari c Islamic Republic of Iran. La Cour superieure de justice de l'Ontario a conclu qu’en vertu de la Loi sur 1'immunite des Etats (LIE), l'Iran jouissait de l'immunite au Canada relativement a la torture commise sur son territoire. Dans cet article portant sur l’immunite des Etats, la decision precitee est analysee a la lumiere du droit international contemporain et de la jurisprudence pertinente. L'auteur fait valoir que la LIE n'a pas evacue la common law canadienne en matiere d'immunite etatique, laquelle continue a s'appliquer aux instances exclues par la loi. En common law, soutient finalement l'auteur, la torture ne saurait etre qualifiee d'acta jure imperii.
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 | 0.009 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".