Secrecy, National Security and the Vindication of Constitutional Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The book proposes an important collection of scholarly essays dealing with the broad area of secrecy and national security in the light of constitutional law. In particular, the authors analyze, from a comparative point of view, a number of critical legal and policy issues that relate to secrecy and its problematic relationship with a functioning constitutional democracy. The book is divided into five parts, each one examining the problem under a specific point of view: the first one focuses on the complicated interaction between secrecy and courts, with a particular focus on counter-terrorism policies in the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany. The second part focuses on legislative oversight of the state secrets privilege, analyzing the American and Canadian models as regards direct and indirect access to intelligence information, while offering a broader overview of the Italian secrecy legislation (and policy) and the role played by the Government, the Parliament and the Constitutional Court. The third part faces the widely debated and still unsolved problem of secrecy with regard to imprisonment and the deprivation of liberty. With 9/11 as a starting point, contributors deal with various approaches to secret evidence and preemptive (or incommunicado) detentions adopted by different countries such as Israel, the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States and Canada, stressing the vulnerability of constitutional values and principles at stake. Closely linked to the third part, the fourth one studies the effects of secrecy within criminal trials, with particular regard to the feasibility of such trials in case of terrorism charges, the widespread practice of anonymous testimony and the resort to special judges such as military commissions. The fifth and last part faces the impact of secrecy on administrative measures, with a focus on supra-national measures and European law, wondering how to preserve the due process of law within the delicate area of governmental and inter-governmental discretion. The book, as a whole, offers a complete and thorough collection of state-of-the-art scholarship on some of the most current topics of the constitutional debate.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".