The Right of Access to Justice as a Prerequisite for Human Rights Enforcement
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
The article analyzes the ways of interpretation and enforcement of the right of access to justice. Through comparison of national and foreign studies, the author is trying to prove the demand for a wide interpretation of the right of access to justice.By providing certain national studies, the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, and in-force legal policy, the author shows that only the first “wave” of the right to access to justice is implemented in Ukraine. Due to a narrow definition of the right of access to justice, the legal policy cannot guarantee a proper level of the rule of law. This fact is supported by the annual legal ranking of the countries by the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index. The countries in the top of the rule of law rating accept a wide definition of the right of access to justice, with all four “waves” [of this right] implemented. The article describes the elements of each “wave” that are also presented by the legal framework of reforming justice in Australia, the decisions of the Supreme Court of India, the Courts of Canada, and the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Those components include: a real possibility to use legal remedies of the formal justice, access to qualified legal assistance, promotion of pre-trial dispute resolution by facilitation, mediation or arbitration, and preventing disputes arising overall.The possibility of implementing the idea mentioned hereinabove is proposed by interpreting the 3rd article of the Constitution of Ukraine that underlines that human rights, freedoms, and guarantees shall determine the essence and course of activities of the State, and highlights that ensuring human rights and freedoms shall be the main duty of the State.Article received 10.04.2018
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it