Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the justificatory basis of the right to candidacy, otherwise referred to as the right to stand for election, and assesses the implications of characterising political candidacy as a human right. It examines the extent of the right's legal recognition in international, regional and domestic human rights law with specific focus on the jurisprudence of the United States, Canada and the ECtHR. This dissertation then offers a theoretical justification for the existence of a moral right to candidacy in all liberal democracies. This justificatory account highlights how the following values and interests underlie the right to candidacy: dignity (as social recognition of one’s equal moral status), autonomy, self-expression and self-development. It further examines the derivative justifications for the right to candidacy by outlining the extent to which it is necessary for the effective exercise of the right to vote, freedom of association and the maintenance of a common liberal culture. The correlative duties to which the right gives rise are also examined. It is argued that the right entails duties to respect, protect and fulfil. The duty to respect imposes a negative obligation on the State to refrain from imposing unjustifiable disqualifications or eligibility requirements for elective office. The duty to protect entails an obligation to safeguard against infringements of the right by political parties in their candidate selection processes. Thirdly, the duty to fulfil involves a positive obligation to organise and administer free and fair elections with a reasonably level playing field in which candidates may compete. This thesis subsequently explores the institutional implementation of these duties and how the values and interests underlying the right should help inform the scope and content of such duties in the jurisdictions specified above.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.067 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".