Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article identifies three senses of the term ‘lawfare’ in the South African context. In the first and most standard sense of the term, law was abused by the state during the pre-democratic era in order to construct a racist state. In the second sense, litigation was used in the period 1910–1993 as a weapon of the weak by those excluded from the franchise, in order to resist oppression and rule by law. The third sense of lawfare overlaps with the second but is associated with the judicialisation of politics in the era of constitutional democracy. It refers to the use of litigation to resolve contentious political disputes in spite of the existence of many non-curial constitutional safeguards. Using examples, the article shows that lawfare in this third sense was a feature of the presidency of Jacob Zuma and that it was triggered by the rise of nepotism, corruption and state capture well as the abdication of governance responsibilities to the judiciary. It argues that because the courts have been drawn into the public arena and thrust into a relationship of constant tension with the political branches, the judiciary has become the primary casualty of this barrage of lawfare.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".