The Future Mandate of the Constitution of Slovenia: A Potent Tradition Under Strain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The 1991 Constitution of Slovenia belongs to the category of strong constitutions, with a detailed list of rights. The report informs that the concept of the rule of law mostly draws on German commentaries on the constitutional Rechtsstaat, and its main elements are expressly entrenched in constitutional provisions. Particularly notable are the detailed limits on the power of the state in prosecuting crimes and detailed guarantees for judicial protection, which are identified as more extensive than those in the ECHR and the EU Charter. The constitutional amendments for EU and international co-operation contain a clause on the respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The report extensively documents areas where the above, potent constitutional tradition has come under strain in the context of EU law. The examples range from the Data Retention Directive – the implementation of which was rushed under the threat of EU fines – to concerns by scholars with regard to Viking Line and Laval that the Constitution limits the limitations on fundamental rights, and that economic freedoms ought not to trump fundamental rights despite the status that the former have been accorded by the ECJ. A particularly acute awareness emerges with regard to the changing role of courts in European Arrest Warrant cases, with warnings by lawyers about the danger of instrumentalising judges, and transforming judges into ‘ticking box’ automatons neglecting their duty of safeguarding fundamental rights. The constitutional protection of the right to water has also been debated with reference to an EU directive. More broadly, the report expresses concern that because of the different approach to judicial review of EU measures, the heavy books with commentary on the Constitution are no longer carried by civil servants to meetings to identify constraints on the exercise of public power placed by the Constitutional Court.
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 | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".