MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Doctrine of locus standi: occurrence and evolution in administrative law

2024· article· en· W4392097831 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
V. M. Pidluzhnyi

Bibliographic record

VenueUzhhorod National University Herald Series Law · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean and International Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDoctrineLawAdministrative lawPolitical scienceLocus (genetics)GeneticsBiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is dedicated to the issues of the history of the emergence and evolution of the locus standi doctrine (locus standi in judicio). The occurrence of the term “locus standi,” as well as its manifestations in Roman law, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and the 20th century, allows for a better understanding of the locus standi doctrine and possible avenues for its development. In administrative law of the United States, Canada, France, Italy, South Africa, and other countries, the locus standi doctrine holds a prominent place. Ukranian legal system operates with the right to access to the court, the right to appeal to an administrative court, the right to judicial protection, and the right to seek redress, which can have different meanings depending on their understanding in substantive or procedural aspects, taking into account their possible understanding in sensu stricto or sensu lato. In the aspect of determining the right to appeal to an administrative court, the presence of administrative procedural legal subjectivity in a person is crucial in national legal system. Any person with administrative procedural legal subjectivity can be a plaintiff in an administrative case, but not every plaintiff is a proper plaintiff in an administrative case. The right to protection belongs to the proper plaintiff, who has claims in a particular administrative legal dispute. The presence of the right to protection, and in the laws of the United States, Canada, France, Italy, and other countries – the presence of locus standi (locus standi in judicio) in a person, precedes the determination of the possibility of granting the claims of such a person. The evolution of the locus standi doctrine in this article is examined from the right of an individual to appear before popular assemblies in ancient Rome to the right of an individual to appear before the court and act as a plaintiff in a case in modern times. This article attempts to explore the historical aspect of the formation of the locus standi doctrine, as well as its potential application as a basis for further clarification of the substantive legal nature of a proper plaintiff.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUzhhorod National University Herald Series LawSame topicEuropean and International Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207