Conflict Resolution in Human Rights Cases: The Role of the Supreme Court of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the role of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in resolving human rights conflicts and balancing individual and collective rights. With a multiple control mission, the Court must interpret the Constitution and resolve disputes over competing rights and interests, based on the principle of constitutional democracy. This paper specifically focuses on the SCC’s role in conflict resolution in human rights cases, especially in the complex legal framework of protection existing in Canada. It also addresses how the Court’s rulings may affect the protection of fundamental rights under the Canadian Charter, illustrated by some key examples from the Court’s caselaw. To this end, the first part provides a descriptive overview of the complex fabric of human rights protection in the Canadian constitutional framework. The second part discusses the SCC’s role in protecting human rights within the Canadian legal system. Ultimately, this paper underscores the fundamental role of a Supreme Court in protecting human rights in situations of multiple rights conflicts.
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 | 0.014 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".