The Normative Cycle of Shaping Judicial Independence in Domestic and International Law: The Mutual Impact of National and International Jurisprudence and Contemporary Practical and Conceptual Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this Article, I will discuss domestic and international law as they relate to judicial independence, and how their interrelationship impacts judicial independence in both arenas. I will also note current challenges to judicial independence, on both practical and theoretical levels, and suggest some appropriate solutions. Section I reviews the three phases of judicial independence, using England as a case study. Section II considers fundamental concepts surrounding judicial independence: models, principles, and constitutionalism. It is important to review these normative concepts in order to create a common language of judicial independence. Section III explores challenges to judicial independence, both past and present. Section IV analyzes the response to these challenges: the creation of a culture of judicial independence. Section V evaluates the different components that have been, and that continue to be, critical to the culture of judicial independence. Cultures of judicial independence are built on both the domestic and international fronts, and in their more advanced stages consist of a combination of national and international law and jurisprudence. Section VI examines how the interrelationships between domestic law, international human rights law, and professional international standards have had a normative effect on the culture of judicial independence over its three phases. Particular attention is paid to England, the US, Austria, and Canada, with special reference where appropriate to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("ECHR"), and the UK's Human Rights Act and Constitutional Reforms Act. This Article concludes with a look to the future.
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 | 0.044 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.137 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| 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".