The Proportionality Principle as a Reviewing Standard of Constitutionality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Prohibition of Excessive Restriction or the Proportionality Principle (hereafter as “the Proportionality”) in a broad sense refers to the basic principle or the limitation of legislative activities that the state should abide by in carrying out when it makes laws that restrict the citizens’ basic rights. In other words, laws that restrict the citizens’ basic rights must meet the qualifications of the Legitimate Law Object, the Adequate Mean, the Minimal Impairment, and the Balancing between personal interest and public interest (hereafter as “the Balancing”). The Korean Constitutional Court (hereafter as “the Court”) has so far tended to focus its arguments on the Minimal Impairment in applying the four sub-principles of the Proportionality: the Legitimate Law Object, the Adequate Mean, the Minimal Impairment, and the Balancing. However, the Proportionality is a sequential and step-by-step review structure, and ‘step-by-step review’ presupposes that each sub-principle has its own meaning. If so, the Court’s Balancing review that has been criticized as “an overdose of the Proportionality”, should now be changed. That is, the Minimal Impairment should be limited to the evaluation of “legislative alternatives”, and the degree of restriction on basic rights or the judgment of Endurance Possibility should be moved to the Balancing to make use of the merits of the step-by-step review. These changes also bring the Court on par with the trends of advanced foreign constitutional courts such as Germany (The German Constitutional Court) and Canda (the Canadian Federal Supreme Court). Moreover, by doing so, the Court can correctly establish the criteria of the Proportionality as a reviewing standard of constitutionality.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".