Interpreting Law Through International Judicial Dialogue by Polish Courts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International judicial dialogue is a new method of law interpretation that gains popularity in analyses of legal scholars and still raises a lot of doubts both on its existence as well as its definition. This paper will deal with the application of this technique by Polish courts. In the first place, it will be explained what international judicial dialogue actually means. Afterwards, the paper will in detail discuss problems connected to the use of this method on the basis of decisions of Polish courts, first, by presenting examples of a proper, decorative and failed dialogue, and then by emphasizing complications caused by this method in the Polish jurisprudence. It will be also explored whether there exists a real dialogue, meaning that not only Polish courts receptively refer to judgments of international and foreign courts, but there is also some level of reciprocity in those references. At the end of the paper, the advantages and disadvantages of this method will be deliberated. In this part, I will suggest some solutions permitting mitigation of some adverse effects s of this technique.
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 | 0.020 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".