<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 in Canada (Justice) v. Khadr , in which the Court announced an exception to its June 2007 holding in R. v. Hape. Hape held, on international legal grounds, that application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the acts of Canadian officials abroad is “impossible.” Khadr held 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 the Hape principle, which, it is argued, is ill-founded in international law. However, the author is also critical of the Court’s failure to engage directly with Hape 's many flaws or to justify in any way the seemingly arbitrary exception to it propounded in Khadr . 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 the Charter .
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".