Bills of Rights in Functioning Parliamentary Democracies: Kantian, Consequentialist and Institutionalist Scepticisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most functioning democracies have charters of rights as part of the constitution or as a special statute. These instruments are generally accepted as valued constitutional features despite local debates about their scope and application. However, in the parliamentary democracies of the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, there is continuing debate about the wisdom of having a bill of rights. This paper is a critical examination of the principal theoretical arguments against a bill of rights in any form, focusing on Kantian, consequentialist and institutionalist objections. The paper finds flaws in the Kantian and consequentialist arguments and proposes that the institutionalist approach to the issue is more instructive in evaluating the worth of a bill of rights. It concludes that, given the institutional settings of the Australian political and legal system, a statutory bill of rights narrowly focused on Lockean natural rights may strengthen constitutional government. Copyright © 2010 Thomson Reuters
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".