The Institutional and Substantive Effectsof the Human Rights Act in the United Kingdom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reviews the institutional and substantive impact that the Human Rights Act has on English law through its incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under the Act, higher courts can now move beyond a formalistic method of judicial review and substantively evaluate legislation in light of the Convention. The judiciary can accordingly issue declarations that statutes are incompatible with the Convention which, although not invalidating the act in question, will bring considerable political pressure to bear on Parliament to ensure compliance. The Act further directs courts to give special regard to the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights when considering cases involving Convention rights. This new source of jurisprudence, along with the Convention, brings a positive conception of rights into English law that conflicts with the negative conception foundin the common lawandtheAct's attempts topreservepariamentary sovereignty. Where authority from the European Court is lacking, English courts in the future will have to anticipate its response by engaging in a teleological approach to rights interpretation that is based on broad principles rather than textual formalism. Nevertheless, the common law should successfully accommodate these developments into its own framework.
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 | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".