Incompatibilists, Critics, and Living Trees: the compatibility of international law and constitutional democracy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this thesis, I address two issues. First, I reject the supposed conflict between international law and constitutional democracy. And second, I explore the role of international law in domestic constitutional law, particularly in Canada. In order to address both of these issues, I draw an analogy between the “Incompatibilist” critiques of international law and constitutional democracy, and the arguments against judicial review made by “the Critics” that Waluchow responds to in his book, A Common Law Theory of Judicial Review: the Living Tree. I argue that both the Incompatibilists and the Critics describe in-principle problems, structural problems, and decision-making problems in their respective critiques. The Incompatibilists are describing these problems in the context of the interaction between international law and constitutional democracies, while the Critics are focusing on constitutional judicial review, but I argue that the theory Waluchow presents as an answer to the Critics can also be directly applied to the Incompatibilists. Waluchow’s theory of common law judicial review and the community’s constitutional morality gives support and democratic legitimacy to judicial review in a domestic constitutional context. By applying his reasoning to cases involving international norms, I address problems in domestic courts’ application of international law and the democratic challenges they face.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it