The Myth of Jus Tractatus in La Belle Province: Quebec's Gérin-Lajoie Statement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is much debate in Quebec challenging the traditional stance on tractatus, '' prevalent for nearly 100 years, to the effect that the federal government enjoys plenary power to enter into international treaties, whether the subject matter is federal or provincial. The paper argues that Quebec's Gerin-Lajoie doctrine has become a myth over the years, liable to have a huge semiotic effect, creating the perception that there is an incontestably true legal basis for provincial treatymaking power. After dwelling upon the ontological understanding of mythology, the author shows that the constitutional practice since the emancipation from Great Britain, as well as uninterrupted caselaw since both decisions in the Labour Conventions Case, inexorably support the exclusive federal power based on royal prerogatives, a position confirmed de jure with the 1947 Letters Patent. The Gerin-Lajoie statement is just that, a political statement, which is unsubstantiated by positive rules of constitutional law; the two-Crown approach, based on Liquidators of Maritime Bank and Bonanza Creek, is of no avail in that regard.Il y a bien du bruit, au Quebec, contestant l'etat du droit relatif au «jus tractatus, » pourtant fixe depuis pres de cent ans, voulant que le gouvernement federal detienne la plenitude des pouvoirs pour conclure les traites internationaux, que la matiere releve du federal ou du provincial. L'auteur est d'avis que la «doctrine» Gerin-Lajoie du Quebec est devenue un mythe, dont l'effet semiologique est enorme, creant une perception incontestable qu'un jus tractatus provincial jouit d'une base juridique veritable. Apres avoir discute de l'apprehension ontologique de la mythologie, il est vu que la pratique constitutionnelle depuis l'emancipation de la Grande Bretagne, ainsi que la jurisprudence ininterrompue depuis les deux decisions dans T.Affaire des Conventions du travail, vont inexorablement dans le sens d'un pouvoir exclusif federal fonde sur les prerogatives royales, une position confirmee de jure avec les Lettres patentes de 1947. L'enonce Gerin-Lajoie n'est que ca en fait, un enonce politique, qui ne s'appuie sur aucune regle de droit constitutionnel positif; la theorie des «deux Couronnes,» venant des arrets Liquidateurs de la Banque maritime et Bonanza Creek, s'avere inutile a ce sujet.IntroductionI. The power of mythology and socially constructed mythsII. The myth of the Gerin-Lajoie statement1. Plenary jus tractatus for the federal governmenta. International law not completely neutral on jus tractatusb. The federal government plenary power over jus tractatusc. The Gerin-Lajoie political statementIII. Jus tractatus based on royal prerogativeIV. No legal basis for the Gerin-Lajoie statementConclusionIntroductionLudwig Wittgenstein was certainly right, dare I say presumptuously, to recant his original position expressed in Tractatus1-to the effect that words represent reality, that language offers, as it were, a mere picture of the world-and (finally) realise that words and expressions do not only provide a representation of reality but, indeed, that language is an activity happening within reality, that in effect language is a participant in human consciousness.2 Fellow University of Cambridge international law professor Philip Allott has also borrowed from Wittgenstein:With Wittgenstein, we have been forced to face the possibility that human communication is not the transfer of something called Truth through a neutral medium called Language. Communication would then have to be regarded as simply another form of human activity, sharing in the intrinsic and irreducible ambiguity of all human activity.3This fundamental theory of language, which in a way has proved revolutionary in modem philosophy, is at the centre of this short paper honouring Hugh Kindred. Along with his legacy of scholarship in this field of studies, in the steps of his predecessors at Dalhousie like Ronald St. …
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".