Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theory of Sovereign Acts is of a judicial origin. It was created by the French Council of State to face political circumstances experienced by France in the early part of the last century. However, this Theory is still operative to date though justifications of its survival vanished. This theory has been sternly criticized by most of jurists due to its violation of the Principle of Legality and the democratic principles. However, it is still effective under laws and judiciary refuses to have control over it. Given the importance of this theory and its seriousness, this study aims to clarify the concept and origin of acts of sovereignty and the criteria used to distinguish it from other acts carried out by the government. This study also aims to show the position of jurisprudence, legislation and the judiciary on the acts of sovereignty that are immune from judicial control. In spite of the democratic progress and the individuals’ increased awareness of their rights, this study concludes that the laws still provide for these acts and make them immune from the judicial control. However, the judiciary has started to to restrict the scope of acts of sovereignty, and to adopt the theory of acts detachable from acts of sovereignty, where it has started to control acts of sovereignty and to approve compensation for some of these acts. This study concludes that the Theory of Sovereign Acts was created by judiciary to face certain conditions and causes that do not exist anymore. Hence, the provisions protecting acts of sovereignty from the judicial control must be repealed for violation of the principles of legality, justice and democracy.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".