MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136102735

The Constitutionalisation of English Judicial Review in Ireland: Continuity and Change

2019· article· en· W3136102735 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Daly

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOmbudsman and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstitutionLawPolitical scienceJudicial reviewIrishPublic lawPrerogativeJurisdictionConstitutionalismLegislatureCommon lawJudicial independenceConstitutional lawPoliticsDemocracy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The constitutionalisation of Irish public law – first on independence in 1922 and then in 1937 on the adoption of the Irish Constitution – has had a marked effect on the development of Irish administrative law. My two objectives here are, first, to describe the constitutional influences on the development of Irish administrative law and, second, to demonstrate that Ireland has an indigenous administrative law. I begin in Part I with a brief historical introduction before moving in Part II to a discussion of the influence of the Constitution. In some areas, notwithstanding the adoption of the Constitution, legal life has gone on as before. The supervisory role of the superior courts has continued mostly unaltered, despite constitutional language that might be thought to justify a more intrusive judicial review jurisdiction. The law in relation to procedural fairness has been constitutionalised – and has a bespoke term, “constitutional justice” – but is not markedly different in substance from the English equivalent. However, there have been some important changes. With sovereignty residing in the People, rather than the Crown, the prerogative has been held not to have survived the transition to a new constitutional order. The permissible scope of delegation of power by the legislature has also been circumscribed. The constitutionalisation of judicially enforceable fundamental rights, meanwhile, meant that Irish administrative lawyers followed a ‘rights-based’ approach before their counterparts elsewhere in the common law world began to think in such terms. Finally, even though the supervisory role of the superior courts remains intact, it now has constitutional protection, such that limitations on access to judicial review are strictly policed and, potentially, unconstitutional. In Part III, I will tentatively suggest that the existence of the Constitution, and thus of an identifiably indigenous Irish administrative law, has prompted Irish judges to be self-confident enough to refuse to follow settled English law. There are some important areas where Irish administrative law has not tracked English administrative law, most notably in relation to error of law and procedural exclusivity (which has had a particular effect on the development of the law of legitimate expectations). In these areas, the Irish courts have operated in the shadow of English law but have sought to develop an indigenous approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.028
Scholarly communication0.0240.006
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0050.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicOmbudsman and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207