MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4246600769 · doi:10.1017/s1528887000003177

Kadi and the Role of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the International Legal Order

2013· article· en· W4246600769 on OpenAlexaff
Veronika Fikfak

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge yearbook of European legal studies · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsCentre for International Governance Innovation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceEconomic JusticeEuropean unionOrder (exchange)LawEuropean court of justiceEuropean Union lawInternational courtInternational lawLaw and economicsSociologyPublic international lawInternational tradeBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter investigates the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the international legal order in light of its decision inKadiand the forthcomingKadi II. It focuses on establishing how the Court perceives its relationship with the UN Security Council and its position in the international legal order. The CJEU’s approach is analysed by identifying the characteristics of review adopted by it as a ‘constitutional court of a municipal legal order’. In this context, the chapter reveals how the CJEU’s review resembles that employed by domestic courts seeking to give force to the same or similar actions of international institutions and shows which motives may have led the CJEU to follow the practice of national courts in constructing its relationship with the international organs. This practice is contrasted with Advocate General Bot’s desire to depart from the image of an all-powerful but isolated CJEU, a court ignorant of other legal orders. Bot insists that what the CJEU ought to do inKadi IIis adopt both a more modest, deferential role in reviewing international sanctions and a rather more active role as a participant in the international legal order.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0110.033
Scholarly communication0.0280.011
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge yearbook of European legal studiesSame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207