Judicial Activism in the House of Lords: A Composite Constitutionalist Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article considers the debate on judicial activism in the context of British constitutional law, and advances a theory of constitutiuonalism. Accepting the role of the judiciary as an important actor in the public decision-making process, it however argues that in the context of multi-participant ongoing public processes, the court is neither the bearer of the last word nor can it single-handedly reform socially accepted norms. In its approach to this issue, the article elaborates further on Cohn and Kremnitzer's model of judicial activism (18 Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, 333 (2005)). This model presents a composite view of the role of the judiciary in the public sphere, and argues for active judicial participation that is nevertheless constrained by the constitutional framework. On a socio-legal level, these judiciary's different functions support fifteen parameters, which can be used to assess judicial contribution in its various forms. As a case study, the article analyses the indefinite detention decision (A) of 2004, and defines a more complex picture. In consideration of the surrounding dynamics of the decision, A was well grounded in the social decision-making process, and expresses a lower level of activism in this respect. Finally, the current constitutional framework justifies intervention to protect the rights involved, centered on liberty of the person. These results redefine the decision as a compound expression of activism and restraint, which reflects the composite role of the judiciary. As such, the model belongs to the constitutionalist camp, an emerging public law theory that supports an empowered judiciary and advocates the role of the courts as active participants in an expanded public sphere of decision-making and rule-implementation. The article is also a defense of this theory. It challenges recent criticism of constitutionalism as misrepresentation of the true nature of this theory.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".