Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the recognition of the right to non-discrimination as a fundamental principle in international law, true equality remains elusive. This encourages a closer look at existing protection systems and their strengths and weaknesses. In her recent book, Sandra Fredman offers a comprehensive introduction to contemporary anti-discrimination law and frames it in its historical and social context. By conducting a comparative analysis of equality laws in the United States, India, Canada and South Africa, as well as the United Kingdom, the European Union, and the European Convention on Human Rights, the author critically examines the strengths and weaknesses in the various legal frameworks, and explores the reasons for their limited successes in achieving substantive equality. The introductory chapter presents the complexity of ‘equality’ as a universal value, from a legal-philosophical perspective. It offers an examination of various theories on equality as the foundation of legislation, highlighting their inherent limitations and strengths. Moreover, the chapter focuses on the tension between the claim of non-discrimination and competing human rights, such as freedom of expression. Special attention is placed on the complex relationship between freedom, economic rights and the challenge of establishing a definitive hierarchy between the right to equality and other fundamental human rights. Recognising that contemporary anti-discrimination law is embedded in a historical, political and cultural context, Fredman dedicates two chapters to the evolution of discrimination protection. The author concentrates on gender, ethnicity, religion, disability and age, as well as LGBTQIA + rights. She highlights societal challenges and corresponding legal responses, thereby establishing a connection to the contemporary legal framework in the nations under comparison. In Chapters 4 and 5, the author undertakes a detailed analysis of the scope of discrimination law and how different legal systems address protected categories, delving into key concepts such as direct discrimination (unequal treatment) and indirect discrimination (unequal effects). Through this analysis, she highlights the central dilemma of equality law, which lies in differentiating between (unlawful) discriminatory acts against protected characteristics, and legitimate differentiation. Furthermore, Fredman assesses which characteristics should be protected at all costs, and identifies the common thread connecting all these protected characteristics. The chapter also explores the role of duty-bearers and the scope of anti-discrimination law, with a particular focus on the public and private spheres.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".