<i>Khadr</i>'s Twist on<i>Hape</i>: Tortured Determinations of the Extraterritorial Reach of the Canadian<i>Charter</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This comment reviews the Supreme Court of Canada’s May 2008 decision inCanada (Justice) v. Khadr, in which the Court announced an exception to its June 2007 holding inR. v. Hape. Hapeheld, on international legal grounds, that application of theCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedomsto the acts of Canadian officials abroad is “impossible.”Khadrheld that this was not so if the acts of Canadian officials abroad amount to participation in a process that violates Canada’s international legal obligations. The author welcomes this partial retrenchment of theHapeprinciple, which, it is argued, is ill-founded in international law. However, the author is also critical of the Court’s failure to engage directly withHape's many flaws or to justify in any way the seemingly arbitrary exception to it propounded inKhadr. These failures, it is argued, serve only to deepen the legal and logical incoherencies that currently characterize, in the name of respect for Canada’s international legal obligations, the rules governing the extraterritorial applicability of theCharter.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".