The Use of Non-domestic Legal Sources in Supreme Court of Canada Judgments: Is this the Judicial Slowbalization of the Court?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Observed from the perspective of citation of foreign judgments, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) is often considered one of the world’s most cosmopolitan and proactive actors in transnational judicial conversation. However, there are also other forms of non-domestic legal sources that Courts engage with, such as: foreign law, international case law, and international treaties. Hence, the ‘globalist’ or ‘localist’ approach of a court cannot be assessed without looking from this broader perspective. By examining all the 1223 judgments issued by the SCC over 17 years (2000–2016), this study offers a comprehensive picture of citations of all forms of non-domestic legal sources. Remarkably, the empirical data show that the Court has extensively engaged with all forms of non-domestic legal sources, and cites such foreign authorities in approximately 50 different fields of law. This article is distinct in that it combines two different perspectives when analyzing the data: the SCC as an institution and its individual judges. From an institutional perspective, such all-inclusive records demonstrate that foreign citation is decreasing, a trend which may jeopardize the high prestige of the SCC in the global arena. Similar trend is noticeable when the data is analyzed also from an individual-judge perspective. In providing an empirical picture of individual judges’ engagement with non-domestic legal sources, this Article attempts to categorize the 21 justices that have served in the SCC during the 17-year timeframe into three groups: ‘high globalist judges’, ‘moderate globalist judges’, and ‘localist judges’. The article ends with few remarks regarding whether this is a judicial slowbalization of the Court.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".